|     |     |  About Us   |   Archives   |   Contact Us |

Sign up for Security Debrief Newsletters



Archive for the ‘Management & Administration’ Category

« Older Entries

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

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Three

Monday, August 30th, 2010

Bay St. Louis, Waveland and Gulfport, Mississippi

It’s hard to say what the real ground zero of Hurricane Katrina was. For most Americans, they think of the City of New Orleans. They remember the raw and emotionally powerful images of human anguish at the Superdome, the Convention Center, the dramatic rooftop rescues by Coast Guard helicopters, as well as the watery carnage of the Lower 9th Ward.

For as awful as each of those events were, similar catastrophes were experienced by St. Bernard and Jefferson Parishes, as well as Plaquemines and Slidell, LA. While the media certainly covered the earth-shattering events that occurred there, it seems to me that the Gulf Coast of Mississippi seems to have been lost in the coverage. Five years ago, I distinctly remember taking a helicopter trip from New Orleans over to Gulfport, MS. As heartbreaking as it was to hover over broken levees and destruction in southeast Louisiana, it could not compare to what I saw in Mississippi. The only word I used to describe what I saw back then was very simply Hiroshima.  Areas that I had long known from my time doing work at NASA’s Stennis Space Center, long before 9/11 and DHS ever happened, had literally been wiped from the face of Earth. The destruction was beyond catastrophic.

Catastrophic

From the helicopter, the only discernable structures that you could identify were the makeshift tents that emergency personnel and National Guardsmen had put up. In scanning the area, I wanted to see about one piece of property in particular. The more than century-old bed and breakfast along North Beach Blvd in Bay St. Louis that I used to stay at during my extended stays was nothing but shattered debris. After surviving the “big storm” that everyone in Mississippi had never stopped talking about (Hurricane Camille) and countless other storms in its 100-plus years of existence, Miss Ann’s Bed & Breakfast, like thousands of other homes and businesses, finished their lives in destructive ruin.

In returning there today, the only remnants of one of the storied old homes of the South is the old oak that stood at the corner of North Beach Blvd and deMontluzin.

As sad as it was for me to see that, it can’t compare to the lingering heartbreak that residents there have for their lost homes. A longtime friend of mine who lives in Bay St. Louis, Lynn Francis, took me to the place where the first home she had ever purchased once stood. Turning onto Adrienne Court, Lynn seemed to catch herself becoming emotional and quickly apologized.  Telling her to not worry about it, she parked the car and pointed out the car window and said, “This is it.”

Behind the overgrow weeds and shrubbery rested a concrete slap with broken tiles all around it.  While the debris of what had once been her home with its inviting screened porch had long since been removed, the place that had once been a source of warmth and pride for Lynn was now a scar upon the land as well as her heart. For as personal as the visit waStairs to nowheres for her, it is the same for any number of residents. It was not an unusual sight to drive around the area and see brick staircases going up to nowhere because there was no porch or home to connect them to.

Driving closer to the beach, steel beams driven into the ground to anchor the frame of the home against the wrath of Mother Nature were all that remained from any number of places residents of the Mississippi Gulf Coast called home. Another set of stairs, these being spiral, again led to nowhere.

While barren concrete slabs and stairs to nowhere are around for all to see, there is also tremendous rebirth in the area. The once shattered bridge linking Bay St. Louis and Pass Christian now rises high out of the Gulf with artistic brass plaques at points along the walkway telling the story of the area. Stately homes that had been wiped out have been replaced by gleaming structures that would probably send most of the hosts of Home & Garden Television into utter euphoria. Brightly colored condos and beautiful new Catholic churches rise up across from the beach. It was hard not to be inspired at the turn around for the devastated but for every high there seems to be another low around the corner.

Walking along the beach were BP crews looking for oil. With screened shovels, rakes and buckets, nearly a dozen people with bright neon vests and rubber boots and gloves were combing the sand for any remnants of the event that truly ruined the entire region’s summer. What they found appeared to be minuscule, but it was enough to remind me as a visitor of what these people have been through. In speaking with restaurant owners, wait staff and others during my visit, any lingering angst they may have had about Katrina and the area’s recovery was replaced by pure venom for BP.

BP Clean up

No one I spoke to believes any of the promises that BP has made in their television and radio ads. Mississippi residents, like their Louisiana neighbors, fully expect BP to find every possible way of getting out of their responsibilities to the region. They see the oil spill as one more knife into the heart of an economy that depends on fishing and tourism. As to the forthcoming claims process being led by Ken Feinberg, the people I spoke with echoed complaints that I heard in Louisiana about what value a forthcoming damages payment for this year’s losses would be if the oil still in the Gulf prevents people from coming to vacation or eat the fish in their restaurants in future years. If the oil washes up again in future years, residents and business owners fear what they have left will become a waterfront ghost town.

As Jimmy Trapani, the owner of Bay St. Louis’ famous Trapani’s Eatery shared during lunch: “I can handle a storm and move on from that but there’s no moving on when that stuff [the oil] is still out there and people won’t come here to eat in restaurants, go into the water or visit here. What the hell am I supposed to do to prepare this place [his restaurant] for that?”

Trapani's Eatery

Despite his frustrations and those of other MS residents, the citizens of the Magnolia State have proven their abilities to reclaim what was lost as their own. They are one with the coastline and have built smarter and stronger as a result of the lessons learned from the natural fury five years ago. As they look west to their Louisiana neighbors, many take great pride that their recovery seems to be coming along at a better pace, even if they are not receiving the lion’s share of media attention and recognition. Many of them are OK with that, but others fear they will remain overlooked by their noisier next-door neighbors.

Louisiana, and New Orleans in particular, has always made for more compelling media attention than the people of the Magnolia State. In the end though, everyone knows that it’s the end results that matter. The Mississippi Gulf Coast has come back from oblivion before, and the residents there are more than confident in their ability to remain steadfast against lingering threats.  They’ve done so in a fairly quieter fashion for some time now, and that’s OK.

Check out the other pieces in this series.

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part One

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Two

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Four

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security | Comments

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Two

Friday, August 27th, 2010

Plaquemines Parish

Other than cruising along a major piece of highway, there are few places that you can drive in America where you can go 50+ miles and not hit a traffic light. Such is the stretch of highway along Louisiana Highway 23, running straight through the center of Plaquemines Parish.  Located just south of New Orleans, Plaquemines is literally a peninsula with the mighty Mississippi River going right through the center of it.

Where most of America has trains, large trucks and airplanes darting in and out of its boundaries, Plaquemines has large cargo ships, super tankers and even cruise ships sailing right down the center of it. It is not at all unusual to be cruising along in your car going 65 and look over and see one of these monstrosities sailing along or stopping alongside the levee walls to wait before they head up or out of the Mississippi.

River

Plaquemines is also a very rural community. With Mississippi River-rich soil, orange and other citrus groves, and grazing cattle dot the landscape. Further adding to the Parish’s landscape are small harbors of fishing boats that venture out into the Gulf for the day’s catch. Despite all of this Mark Twain-like tranquility, it is safe to say that Plaquemines has been through the ringer for the past five years.

When Katrina struck, surges of water in excess of 50 feet crossed over the levees, parking shrimp boats in the center of the Highway 23 and farmer’s fields while cattle and other farm animals were left dangling in the surrounding trees. It also wiped away hundreds of homes and businesses and put the lives of several thousand of the Parish’s residents in scenarios few of us could imagine. It was in many ways an almost Salvador Dali painting of oddball images to comprehend, but they were very real to the region.

For as stark as it was for a number of Plaquemines residents to live in tents with their families for just over six months (until FEMA trailers were put in place and power and water lines were installed), like the area they call home, they were rustic and stuck it out knowing that things could and would get better.

While the communities of tents may be gone, they have been replaced with larger mobile homes, larger travel trailers as well as reinforced steel structures. The few single family homes that you do see are raised up twelve to fifteen feet so as to give them a sense of protection from the water, should it ever arrive again in such an unwanted fashion.

For as bad as Katrina may have “knocked them on their ass,” as one long time resident described to me, “it is BP that has driven the knife into their hearts” and may have given them what several residents believe to be a truly fatal blow.

Not far from the rustic harbors that are home to shrimpers, oystermen and other fisherman are the shorelines and marshes that were stained by the BP oil spill. Tar balls and oil-soaked marshes and beaches became part of the Plaquemines world this year. As a result, part of the professional and personal livelihoods of many in this community – fishing – ceased to exist. To only make matters worse for many of them, the Obama Administration’s moratorium against new oil drilling projects in the Gulf put even more professional livelihoods and their personal economic recovery on hold.

It’s an open debate by many Plaquemines residents as to what is worse: the impact of Katrina, the BP oil spill or the drilling moratorium. One thing they can all agree on is their concern about their future.Boat

Despite its physical limits in land (some areas of the Parish are only a mile wide), Plaquemines is a gold mine when it comes to fishing, hunting and as every Louisiana license plate reminds you, “Sportsman’s Paradise.” It is also home to one of the country’s and world’s largest estuaries, where crab, oysters, ducks, migratory birds, shrimp and more make their homes. The water and land are truly intermingled into the way of life here, and many residents fear the oil-soaked marshes and recently cleaned beaches contain an environmental time bomb just below the surface that will go off in the coming years. Fears are genuine that the ecosystem will be radically altered in such a way that it will destroy not just the nature they dearly love but the way of life that has been with them for generations.

Compounding the fear is the belief, already echoed by new Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu that BP is “poised to cut and run.” The constant BP media advertisements about “being here to make things right” rings hollow for the vast majority of the people I have met with this week. They’ve heard all the promises before. With Ken Fienberg taking over the BP-funded $20B compensation and clean-up fund and offering the region’s affected residents and businesses six months to take a settlement or go to court, a number of the Parish’s business owners and residents feel like they’ve another potential disaster on their hands.

If they take the settlement money, they give up their rights to sue BP for future damages. The funds they take from BP may or may not help them out, especially if years from now problems with the environment negatively impact the fishing, business operations and way of life they cherish.

marsh

To date, over 28,000 tests have been done by government and independent researchers on the Gulf’s seafood, and the tests declare it safe to eat. The White House, along with the Louisiana Seafood Promotion & Marketing Board, are doing everything they can to assure the American public (and world) of the safety of the Gulf’s natural bounty. Despite those assurances, the perception problem for Gulf seafood harvests is enormous. Those fears will only be compounded if the seafood-loving public turns its back on purchasing Gulf shrimp, oysters, redfish and more.  That will be just another blow to people who have had more than their fair share of pounding over the past five years.

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, but then again, life in Plaquemines has never been simple or easy.

Check out the other pieces in this series.

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part One

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Three

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Four

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security | Comments

Cyberspy Hunting al Qaeda Speaks to Security Debrief

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Over the last decade, America and her allies have done a solid job of beating al Qaeda to a bloody pulp. We’ve hit them with everything we’ve got: troops on the ground; Predator drones in the sky; missiles from the sea; and we’re taking them apart piece by piece on the Web.

But it’s not just the government that’s running down al Qaeda. Even U.S. citizens are using some good-ol’-fashioned American initiative; citizens like Shannen Rossmiller, a citizen cyber spy.

A what?

Rossmiller’s no government agent. She’s just your average citizen with an extraordinary conviction to bring al Qaeda to its knees. Online she sounds like a terrorist, looks like a terrorist and walks like a terrorist, but in reality, she is anything but. Since 9/11, Rossmiller has been on the cutting edge of cyber counterterrorism, hunting and tracking terrorists online and sharing her findings with federal authorities.

Given that we are hunting al Qaeda relentlessly, one might think terrorists would take extra steps to hide their identity on the Internet. Rossmiller said no.

“People still believe they have anonymity online,” she said. “They don’t realize you can trace them and figure out who they are, using IP addresses and other means.”

And because of that belief, they’re willing to talk openly, she said. That’s how she gets them.

So what is cyber counterterrorism? It isn’t yet a defined practice area, though Rossmiller is making strides in that direction. She told us all about it when she spoke to a small gathering of industry specialists, a discussion hosted by Security Debrief and homeland security consulting firm Catalyst Partners.

Take the case of Ryan Anderson, an American National Guardsman who on the verge of deployment to Iraq was also online, using a different name and talking about jihad. Rossmiller identified him as a threat, and posing as an Algerian sympathizer, lured Anderson, over the course of numerous e-mails, into revealing details of his plans.

Rossmiller provided this evidence to the FBI, and with Rossmiller serving as a key witness for the prosecution, Anderson was convicted of attempting to aid and provide information to al Qaeda. He is spending the rest of his life in prison.

Rossmiller is many people in cyberspace, all of them supposedly eager to wage violent jihad. But they’re constructs, built through research and trial and error. She engages radicalized and potentially violent individuals in online forums and websites, slowly but surely writing in Arabic (not her native tongue). The lingo she uses smacks of al Qaeda-speak (whatever that sounds like), and clearly her efforts are effective as she’s pulling would-be terrorists into the open, teeing them up for our federal forces to finish the job.

Ready to sign up? Vigilantes beware. Rossmiller is particularly effective because she understands the law. As the youngest female judge in U.S. history, she has a keen awareness of what constitutes entrapment and what is needed for a conviction. Other well-intentioned but less legal-minded individuals may not be as effective in finding evidence that leads to convictions.

The discussion was moderated by Dr. David McWhorter, principal at Catalyst Partners and a former analyst with the Institute for Defense Analyses. Also helping lead the discussion was Security Debrief’s Steve Bucci, Cyber Security Lead, Global Leadership Initiative at IBM Global Services.

Posted in Cyber Security, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Intelligence, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part One

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Five years ago, my life, like the lives of millions of others, changed. I was one of the thousands of people who went to the Gulf Coast to try to help, to do anything to address what can only be called the summer of ultimate hell. Two monster hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, smashed into the coastlines of Mississippi and Louisiana killing hundreds, costing billions and forever changing our nation.

This week I’ve come back to the Gulf Coast to retrace many of the steps I took five years ago.  Along the way, I’ve reconnected with people I worked with back then and have taken a good look at the lives, land and future of one of the world’s most unique places. For as much as the news media will offer their five-year retrospectives on the anniversaries of these two unprecedented and tragic storms, it can’t begin to capture how much lives have changed here.

New OrleansKatrina memorial

While the street cars still go up Poydras Street, the music and debauchery overflow on Bourbon Street and the glass and facade of the Convention Center in New Orleans are pristinely intact, the wounds left by Katrina remain raw for some.

In some parts, any mention of the word “FEMA” will give you an almost instant reaction of fury.  Like flipping on a light switch, some of the people you speak with will almost instantaneously recount for you their nightmares of frustrations, paperwork and bureaucratic battles that boggle the mind. After they finish releasing their angst about FEMA, many of them will then go into a blistering listing of the faults they see with the State and local governments who weren’t ready to deal with any semblance of Katrina’s fury.

If you talk to business owners and their employees in New Orleans and ask them how business is going, many of them will smile and look at you with a brave face and say, “Everything is fine.” But in the next breath they admit that things aren’t as good as anyone would like. Doors may be open but cash registers and sales are not ringing up.

Despite the tremendous rebirth of New Orleans with its new and refurbished hotels and restaurants, the crowds of tourists and conventioneers that once made the Crescent City one of the country’s most popular destinations, people just aren’t coming here.

Whether it is because of the country’s lingering economic woes, fears about the ongoing violence and crime wave that the city has encountered, or just post-Katrina and Gulf oil spill fatigue and wanting to stay away, I couldn’t help but recognize how light the crowds around the area were. Even from the moment I arrived at New Orleans International Airport, I noticed how empty the airport was. Even the plane coming here was smaller than the one I took just a year ago… and even that wasn’t full.

All of the things you think of when you say New Orleans – jazz, great food, debauchery, Mardi Gras, beads and more – are all back and in vibrant color with one exception: crowds of people.

Every community that goes through a traumatic Katrina-like disaster experiences some type of fluctuation with its population and tourism, but I couldn’t help but feel a sense of lingering fear among the friends and people I’ve met along the way, all waiting for the other shoe to drop.New Orleans

While it would be easy for anyone of us to point to this summer’s Gulf oil spill as that shoe, especially given that it is just down the road for many of the area’s residents, the fear that there is something else that is going to happen seems to hang over the heads of many of the people I’ve spoken with.

People here are genuinely frustrated and suspicious of government, and it’s hard not to blame them. They’ve heard so many promises, seen so much corruption, and been plagued by bureaucracies and incompetence for so long that they just don’t want to hear from Washington, Baton Rouge or City Hall anymore.

In contrast to those experiences, they have seen and continue to see the incredible warmth, care and generosity that comes with having so many people and different service organizations rebuilding homes and restoring properties that most of us would have abandoned long ago. That, along with the victory of their beloved Super Bowl Champions, the Saints, has given them all a bit of hope that they can overcome any remaining obstacles.

But amongst that hope and football pride there is also a sense of exhaustion and looking for a break. Not to sound like an old country song, “but if it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.” This could easily be the refrain of the anthem that has been playing for them over the past five years. While New Orleans and the overall region are no longer knocked to their knees as they were during Katrina, they are certainly looking for that moment that gives them the second wind they need to keep moving forward with confidence and hope.

Maybe you, your family or your friends who are paying a visit might help bring that second wind along.

In fact, I’m thinking of going out to Mothers for Po boy and Pat O’Briens for a hurricane. Why don’t you join me?

Check out the other pieces in this series.

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Two

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Three

Five Years Later, Gulf Coast Reflections – Part Four

New Orleans street

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

The National Cyber Awareness and Education Campaign

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

Those who read my Security Debrief posts or my Tweets will recognize (maybe with a groan) that one of my “issues” is the lack of action in Awareness and Education with regard to cybersecurity. It is not a sexy, nor a potentially lucrative issue, but I believe with all my heart that it is the foundational piece of any eventual “solution” to our cyber woes. We will never really “solve” this, but if we are to remain in the game with the bad guys, we must do better than we are now.

Last week I participated in a conference hosted by NIST. It was designed to progress forward with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE – a really unfortunate acronym). For two days, we discussed the Awareness efforts being led by DHS, examples of seemingly successful education efforts in the Maryland area and some points of view from industry.

The NICE program has four pillars:

  • Awareness (for the general population);
  • Education (aimed mostly at K-12);
  • Training of the Federal Work Force; and
  • Professional Certification.

I will comment on the first three, as I do not consider myself truly qualified to opine on the Professional Certification program.

In regard to Awareness, DHS clearly recognizes the importance of the program. They have put some serious assets against this need, but frankly, it is way too little and way too slow (one hopes it is not too late). They are planning six town hall-style events for the coming year. Yes, I said SIX. When I questioned Bruce McConnell, the counsel to the Deputy Under Secretary for National Plans and Programs, as to this paucity of engagements, he sheepishly admitted that it was not enough, but it was all they could do at this time.

I have said before that based on my experience in speaking outside the Beltway, the Feds could deploy speakers to every local Chamber of Commerce, every Kiwanis Club, and every PTA meeting in America to do a basic presentation on the cyber threats, general issues, and basic cyber hygiene methods, plus Q&A. It would be eaten up by the American public, who is starving for information in this area. DHS’s answer is to solicit volunteer “Ambassadors” to do this task. Great idea, but nowhere near sufficient.

Education is likewise weak at this time. We need a course on cybersecurity taught to every student K-12 and college, every year. The dynamic nature of the subject is such that you never “arrive,” so we need to teach it over and over. The goal is not to make everyone a computer engineer but to reinforce best practices and basic skills that would make the entire system more resilient. Dribs and drabs will not work and will be less than a band aid.

Work Force Training for the federal work force is probably fine, but NICE should also push for Work Force Training writ large. There is no distinct line between the Federal system and the networks of all their private sector partners. Therefore, we need to develop workforce training programs for the American Work Force, not merely the Federal one. I recognize the magnitude of this, but we will get what we pay for.  Additionally, we must acknowledge that this sort of training is needed by the entire workforce, not only for the IT folks. If we target only those who are already technologically proficient, we will have failed.

Bottom line of Bucci’s rant is this: we need to make Awareness and Education a real priority and expend the money, time, and personnel to do it correctly. Simply put, the present NICE plan is good but too small. God bless the folks who are working so hard to make this successful. Let’s give them the assets and backing to succeed.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

Homeland Security Still MIA on EMP

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

As Matthew Harwood’s August 5, 2010 article in Security Management reminds us, Homeland Security has not “taken seriously the threat that a high-altitude detonation of a nuclear weapon could fry the nation’s power grid[.]”

As the article notes, Dr. Michael J. Frankel “warned the Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security that a terrorist organization or a rogue state could detonate a nuclear weapon either above the United States or close to its shores, creating an electromagnetic pulse attack that could severely damage the country’s electronic infrastructure.”

Frankel is executive director of the EMP Commission, which was created in 2001 to study the national security threat an EMP attack could pose to the United States.

While most of its work is classified, the commission has released two unclassified reports: one in 2004 and another in 2008. According to the article “Frankel believes DHS has the expertise in-house to tackle EMP preparedness but needs a Senate-confirmed leader to lead the charge. Already DHS has taken action against nuclear terrorist attack scenarios but continues to ignore the threat of an EMP attack, he said, even though the commission provided the department with 75 unclassified recommendations to mitigate vulnerabilities and promote resiliency in U.S. critical infrastructures.”

If anything, Frankel underplays the scope of the threat. The catastrophe would not stop at our borders. Most of Canada would die, too. Its infrastructure is integrated with the U.S. power grid. Indeed, without the American economic engine, the world economy would quickly collapse. Much of the world’s intellectual property (half of it is in the United States) would be lost as well. As a result of these loses, the Earth would likely recede into the “new” Dark Ages.

It is doubly strange that DHS has dedicated so little to this threat in that similar devastating effects could occur as part of a natural disaster. For example, scientists have long held that intense solar flares could produce similar effects. In addition, there are many other kinds of disasters – from cyber attacks to storms – that can incapacitate infrastructure. Furthermore, preparing for “worst case” scenarios would also improve America’s ability to cope with lesser disasters.

DHS should start to take practical steps now to mitigate the damage inflicted by the most catastrophic disasters imaginable later.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, WMD, Chemical & Biological, 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

A Mosque of a Mess – Absence of Candor at Ground Zero

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Twenty years ago, I graduated from college as a double major in political science and religion.  When asked by family and friends what I intended to do with those degrees, I explained that I wasn’t quite sure, but I knew whatever I did I was pretty sure to tick someone off by something I said at a dinner table when either subject came up.

Politics and religion have always been lightening rods in life, and the twisting of both issues in the current debate over the proposed mosque two blocks from Ground Zero has proven true the standing axiom that you shouldn’t mix the two.

The debate being fought on cable news shows, talk radio, the blogosphere and water coolers has put America’s always restless role in religion front and center. For a country that believes in the separation of church and state and was founded on the principal of being able to worship or not worship the religion of your choice, our country has long segregated faiths and religions by geography, education and societal norms. While our country has certainly “evolved” in recognizing all people’s civil rights, we can be downright primitive in our categorization of one another’s ways of worship.

Let me state very clearly I am not one of these people that believes the Muslim faith preaches hate, murder and intolerance. Now, there are undeniably elements within Islam that preach and live by such putrid codes, but there are just as many people in the Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other religions that are in lock step with such less-than-reverent behavior.

Sadly, there is not a religion on the planet that has not been victimized by extremists of some sort, who have taken whatever religious text they deem holy and twisted it into some sort of holier-than-thou justification for violence, murder or other nefarious purposes. Furthermore, every religion preaches respect and tolerance of others, and this is another area where we all fall remarkably short.

Such is the debate we have today.

In the sweeping rhetoric that has gripped the recent mosque debate, I’ve sadly not heard much distinction between those who are fighting for the soul of Islam against the extremist elements as those who seek to perpetuate it. For many in this debate, they’ve created a simple equation that Islam = anti-everything we stand for and have fanned whatever flames they’ve wanted to fan.

The fault for this condition lies in the hands of everyone involved in the current debate. From those who are against it, because they believe the mosque will be a trophy center paying homage to the 9/11 attackers, to the organizers/developers behind the project.

If the mosque organizers had proactively come forward at the beginning of this national debate to say their facility was about reclaiming their faith from those who bastardized it to justify mass murder, while also educating the public about the widely practiced non-violent aspects of Islam, the tenor of our national conversation on this subject would be remarkably different.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. The lack of candor and disclosure by the mosque organizers/developers about what they stand for, who is funding the project and what they believe has only created an information vacuum that has been filled with inflammatory rumors and rhetoric from every corner.

For as much as I believe that there is a right for the organizers and developers to have a mosque in lower Manhattan, I also believe the organizers and developers have failed in appreciating the sensitivities that people have for blood-stained soil. They have fallen into the same traps that Wal-Mart has fallen into time and again when it tries to build stores near historic properties; that a group of Catholic nuns fell into when they wanted to build a chapel adjacent to a Nazi concentration camp; that Disney ran into when it wanted to build a theme park near some of Virginia’s hallowed Civil War battlefields; and so on.

Any piece of land where blood has been spilled has a cultural radioactivity to it that cannot be appreciated until someone steps on it for purposes other than homage to those who died on it.  Once tread upon, emotions become raw and reasonable dialogue and understanding is often the first thing out the window.

That’s where we are today.

It is my hope that the developers/organizers will select another site that will enable them to tell the world what Islam is really about, what they stand for, and so forth. By doing so, they can demonstrate that their faith has tolerance and respect for others. An actionable demonstration of that respect and tolerance for what has been deemed by many as “hallowed ground” would go a long way in muting some of the rhetoric of the past few weeks.

Unfortunately, the developers/organizers current practice of silence and lack of candor plays to the worst of fears and suspicions of people and that allows the anger and hostility to perpetuate even further.

Politics and religion have always found ways of doing that, but that is something I learned a long time ago.

Posted in Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Management & Administration | Comments

Hertiage’s Homeland Security Panels – Bucci Speaking on Cyber and Maritime

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

Next week, the Heritage Foundation will host “Homeland Security 2010: The Future of Defending the Homeland.” This will be a week-long series of panels aimed at providing a good background for Congressional Staffers new to Homeland Security issues. Heritage did this last year, and it was an excellent event. It should be informative and helpful for the folks who provide the leg work for our Legislative Branch.

This program is diverse. The event begins on Monday, August 23, focusing on maritime security. Two panels will look at this huge area from the civilian and military standpoints.

I will sit on one of the panels and will look at the immense task of achieving maritime security and what has been done so far in pursuit of it. My time as the Deputy Assistant SecDef for Homeland Defense included a great deal of focus on this crucial defense domain.

On Tuesday, the attention will shift to Science and Technology, with two panels looking at the role of fundamental science in security, specifically bioterrorism. Day Three’s panel reaches out to the private sector on its pivotal roll in Homeland Security. It will cover Critical Infrastructure Protection (most of which is privately owned), and the expanding role of the private sector in response since 9/11, Katrina, and the Gulf Oil Spill.

Thursday turns to my favorite – cybersecurity. The actual titles of these panels are intriguing: “Big Brother and the Civilian Network” and “Cyber Nukes: War and Terrorism in the Cyber Domain.” I will be presenting on the latter panel and will look at one of my pet subjects, the growing potential for cyber terrorism once terrorists are enabled by cyber criminal networks.

The five-day program is rounded out with panels looking at the role of state and local government in our response to terrorism and the overall preparedness, response and recovery system.

This outreach to the Staffers is a laudable and worthy task. These (mostly) young citizens are highly educated and very motivated to serve their members in the task of creating an effective legal underpinning for our Homeland Security efforts. By gathering together a diverse group of academics, practitioners, industry types and pundits, Heritage provides an excellent menu of topics from which the staff personnel can choose to augment their knowledge, and with whom they can debate and discuss the issues.

I am very happy to have been asked to participate, and I will be prepared for a great deal of learning and free flowing discourse.  The panels are open to the public and all are welcome. I highly recommend it.

You can RSVP for the panels and find out more by visiting The Heritage Foundation’s website.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Cyber Security, Homeland Security & the Internet; Gov't 2.0, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, Maritime & Seaport Security, Military & Homeland Defense, Science & Technology, counterterrorism | Comments

For Victory over al Qaeda, Build the Mosque at Ground Zero

Monday, August 16th, 2010

By Justin Hienz

Radicalization and violent jihad are phenomena intimately linked to the United States’ homeland security efforts. Those who buy into transnational terrorism’s violent ideology are threats to America, but just as important to U.S. security is how the American public understands and responds to Islam.

On Friday, President Obama weighed in on the continuing debate over whether to allow construction of an Islamic Center near Ground Zero in New York City. Celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan with invited guests during a Friday dinner, the president said:

“I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan.”

A strong statement. A bold statement. A statement of leadership on our country’s values. In commenting on the proposed mosque (albeit indirectly), Obama sent a message to the country – the mosque should be built because our national principles demand it. Well said, Mr. President.

But then, on Saturday, Obama amended his statements for reporters. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, he said:

“‘I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque” near Ground Zero. ‘I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding.’”

Did I miss something? His position on Friday seemed fairly clear, particularly because the mosque-in-NYC issue had been made so salient by constant media coverage. What else could he have been talking about? Yet on Saturday, the President’s stance was far less sure.

For those unfamiliar with this matter, the debate revolves around whether an Islamic Center can be housed in a building planned for a location two blocks – 45 Park Place – from where the Twin Towers once stood. The building would be open to all faiths, and the proposed name, Cordoba House, refers to a Spanish city where Muslims, Christians and Jews once lived together in peace.

Nevertheless, headlines have focused on the key words “mosque” at “Ground Zero” because it grabs attention and sells. This has served to inflame a national debate, with known opponents of the mosque sticking dead on message, peppering remarks with dramatic key words. There have also been other instances throughout the country where communities have argued against the construction of a mosque in their neighborhood.

A CNN/Opinion Research report shows that 68 percent of those surveyed oppose the mosque. While the question’s wording is somewhat leading, 68 percent is still a significant number, even with a wide margin of error. The ongoing debate reveals a great deal about how some Americans view Islam.

To be sure, those objecting to the Islamic Center are opposed not simply to the new place of Muslim worship but to the idea that anything related to Islam can safely exist so close to the site of al Qaeda’s greatest victory, without dishonoring the dead. This viewpoint is flawed, because it is based on a misunderstanding of religion generally, Islam specifically.

Islam, like all other religions, is dynamic, not static and monolithic. It is diverse across regions and has changed throughout history. More importantly, the concept of “Islam” (much like the concept of “Christianity,” et al.) is not standard across the world. An individual’s religious beliefs are unique to themselves because how a person interprets their faith is guided, in part, by forces in their environment, such as economy, lawlessness, poverty, etc. No person’s belief is identical to another’s, and so, to understand Islam as a singular idea and motivator is incorrect.

There is no legal, ethical or American justification for refusing the right to build an Islamic Center at 45 Park Place. It is ridiculous to oppose a house of prayer on the grounds that it is Islamic, citing the terrorists who brought down the Twin Towers as evidence of Islam’s inherent problems.

Denying the Islamic Center is tantamount to denying the construction of a Christian church (of any denomination) near the site of the destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Timothy McVeigh (the man responsible for blowing up the federal building) was Christian, but do you expect we would hear the same outcry if the site of a proposed church was adjacent to where that building once stood?

What we are encountering here is an emotional response, fanned by the media, revealing that, even a decade after the attacks on September 11, some Americans still just don’t get it. They don’t understand that al Qaeda and other terrorists are the Timothy McVeighs of Islam. Radicalized believers draw no more support from Muslim communities than militant Christians do from the global Christian population.

Debate is healthy. It’s one of the best attributes of the American social tradition. But if this debate leads to either 1. An action that prevents the construction of the mosque or 2. Further anti-Islamic attitudes preventing an American Muslim’s basic rights, then we have dishonored the memory of those who died on 9/11.

It means we have allowed Osama bin Laden, his followers and other enemies of America to construct a false opposition between Islam and America. “The Narrative,” a monstrous ideology advocating an inherent conflict between Western society and the Muslim faith, is what al Qaeda and other enemies of America believe. We must not perpetuate this lie by suspecting and fearing Islam. We must see clearly that the tragedies on September 11 were the product of terribly misguided people. The bastardized interpretation of Islam that they used to justify their actions does not reflect what most of the world’s one billion Muslims believe. Period.

If this mosque is not built (or if it is protested after it is built), then Osama’s greatest victory was getting Americans to believe what he believes – that there is a war between America and Islam. But if the mosque is built, we honor those killed, because it shows that we are continuing to triumph over bin Laden’s lies. Neither he nor his ideology has a home in America.

Had the President not made those weak-willed statements on Saturday, his initial endorsement of the mosque would have been a step in the right direction for the American people’s perception of Islam. Now more than ever we need authoritative voices to take a consistent stand and guide the public towards a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the Muslim faith.

Justin Hienz is Managing Editor for Security Debrief and a Senior Account Executive at Adfero Group.

Justin Hienz is Managing Editor for Security Debrief and a Senior Account Executive at Adfero Group.

Posted in Ideology & Public Diplomacy, International, Management & Administration, Radicalization, Terror Strategic Analysis, counterterrorism | Comments

Ted Stevens, Sean O’Keefe and a Powerful Gesture

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

Yesterday’s sad news from Alaska about the tragic plane crash that killed former Senator Ted Stevens and four others, and seriously injured former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe, his son and two others, brought to mind a chance encounter I had with both men over seven years ago.

At the time, I was working at NASA Headquarters in the Public Affairs shop, and times at NASA were even more difficult than they are today. In early spring 2003, NASA was dealing with the painful aftershocks of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the seven crew members of STS-107. Everyday new information was coming out regarding the causes of the accident, and that meant painful news headlines for America’s space agency and families of the lost crew. Painful news headlines in turn mean a stirred up Congress, which is always looking for someone to blame and hang out to dry.

Congress was already upset enough with NASA.  Rather than wait for some congressionally sanctioned body to investigate the causes and events of the February 1, 2003 accident, NASA, because of post-Space Shuttle Challenger accident reforms, had immediately moved forward in the hours after the incident to begin its investigation.

The work of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), led by retired Navy Admiral Hal Gehman, was underway, but despite their on-going work, Congress still wanted its moment to question NASA. That is where this story begins.

Since O’Keefe was in charge of NASA, he got the hot seat. In the weeks following the accident, O’Keefe and NASA’s senior management poured over every ounce of information they could to find the causes of accident and share that with CAIB and the public, all while trying to move the agency forward. That by itself was no easy task.

When the time came for congressional hearings on the accident, the NASA General Counsel, Paul Pastorek, had the agency’s lawyers prepare volumes of information that would ultimately have to be absorbed by O’Keefe for Congressional testimony. In working with people close to the hearing prep, they literally described it as getting O’Keefe ready for trial. Before dozens of cameras, skeptical reporters and interrogating Congressional Members looking to take someone out, O’Keefe as the chief witness would have to contend with plenty of loaded questions.

In the spring that year, as more and more details were emerging that an apparent foam strike to the leading edge of the Columbia’s wing was the cause for the accident, O’Keefe traveled again to the Hill for another hearing. Each one of these seemed to be more like a public flogging and incendiary interrogation exercise than a civil discussion of the facts of the accidents. We even had a Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) “tirade” of hand waving and screaming at one hearing.  (I guess he was getting warmed up for future years.)

When O’Keefe went to the Hill this time, there were unsubstantiated rumors and media speculation about whether he would survive the on-going accident investigation. From the horrifying moments after the accident occurred, through the entire investigative process, O’Keefe showed incredible poise in handling the pressure of what was a truly volatile environment. Regardless of his leadership stamina in this environment, when Congress wants a body to throw on the fire, to tar and feather and place blame for something (rightly or wrongly), it usually gets its sacrifice.

O’Keefe prepared for this hearing with plenty of rounds of questioning murder-boards and was as ready as he possibly could be. So off to the Hill he went. Like a number of people at the agency, I was preparing to watch the hearing when a call came from Glenn Mahone (then Assistant Administrator for NASA’s Public Affairs) looking for a folder of information that had been inadvertently left behind. Since I knew where the Committee hearing room was, I volunteered to take it up, and after a NASA colleague gave me a lift to Dirksen Senate Office Building, I was on my way.

After clearing security and making my way to the hearing room, I arrived to find people literally jammed in the doorway. With all seats taken and more onlookers than physical space, the doors were opened in a way so as to allow more people to witness the proceedings.

Knowing that Glenn needed the materials, I started to move through the crowd saying I had something for the witness table and people begrudgingly let me move to the front to get into the hearing room.  At the time, Sen. McCain, who was then Chair of the Commerce Committee, had just wrapped up his opening statement and the then Ranking Committee Member Sen. Hollings was about to begin his. For those who don’t remember, Sen. Hollings, with his well-coiffed white hair and tan complexion, had a full throttle southern drawl down when it came uttering any word. In any of the NASA hearings I had ever seen him attend, Hollings always seemed to have a beef with the Agency, and he was about to let O’Keefe get an earful.

Since O’Keefe was the sole witness at the hearing, he was seated attentively looking at the Senators and listening to their pointed criticisms of the agency’s failings in the accident.

Standing at the front of the mass of people in the doorway, looking for Glenn Mahone, I began to hear behind me a voice saying, “Excuse me. Coming through. I need to get in here. Thank you.  Excuse me. Coming through,”

As these words were being said, the crowd of people behind me started to part ways until finally they parted directly behind me to reveal a small man, and there stood the legendary Senator Ted Stevens.

Recognizing him immediately, I also got out of his way. Stevens then proceeded to stand in front of this mass of people around the doorway and surveyed the situation, looking first at the Committee dais where the Members were seated, the well where a mass of photographers were lying on the floor taking pictures, and a gallery full of people. He seemed to take the entire situation in for a moment or two. By this point, Sen. Hollings was already in the full rambling throttle of his excoriating statement as O’Keefe gave him his full attention.

It was then I saw something that I had never seen before. Stevens proceeded to walk across the room and approach the witness table while the hearing was in session and a Congressional Member was speaking. For those unfamiliar with this behavior, this would be tantamount to standing up in the middle of a sermon at church, walking up to the altar and proceeding to adjust the candles and move things around. (You just don’t do stuff like this!)

Stevens went up to O’Keefe, placed his left hand on O’Keefe’s right shoulder and then extended his right hand to offer a handshake. O’Keefe, who seemed as surprised as the rest of the room to see Stevens appearing at the witness table greeting him with a handshake, especially while a Senator was giving an opening statement, shook his hand right back. By this time, all of the photographers had rolled around on the floor trying to capture pictures of the senior Senator from Alaska shaking the hand of his former staffer.

The gallery of witnesses took this all in and started whispering back and forth about what they were seeing.

The other attending Congressional Members looked up from the papers in front of them to see the handshake exchange between Stevens and O’Keefe, and you could almost see the air go out of their sails.

Stevens stayed there a moment or two longer shaking O’Keefe’s hand to make sure the photographers got their pictures and for the crowd and especially his Congressional colleagues to see what he was doing. Stevens’ simple handshake gesture, while breaking an unwritten rule about approaching a witness table during a hearing, delivered a clear and stern message to everyone, especially his colleagues in that room.

Very simply: “Don’t mess with my guy.”

As Hollings rambled on, looking up briefly to see the exchange between the two men, you could almost see the other attending Members begin to revise some of their pointed and nastier questions. Stevens’ public vote of confidence and support for O’Keefe seemed to change the temperature in the room.

In all of my time in Washington, I had never seen anything like it. It literally was a broadcast message that people who messed with O’Keefe risked the ire of Stevens, and they had been warned without a word ever having been spoken.

Stevens’ actions were as much a measure of his powerful presence as they were the authority by which he wielded his Senate powers. It was also a measure of the respect and devotion that he had for Sean O’Keefe.

After taking in what I had just seen, I found Glenn Mahone, delivered what he wanted and headed back to NASA Headquarters.

Upon arriving back, I was asked by my colleagues what I had seen. I shared with them what I witnessed and the unspoken message that Sen. Stevens had delivered. Sean O’Keefe had the full confidence of one of Congress’ titans and anyone who thought Congress was going to take him out was poorly informed.

I’ve thought about that incident quite a bit since news of the accident first emerged. It was one of the strongest memories I have from my time at NASA and from working the Columbia accident – one I feel fortunate to have witnessed first hand.

It also reminds me that for all of the power and authorities that any one of us gains, in the end, we are all mortal.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families of those lost and with the survivors, for their rapid recovery.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Management & Administration | Comments

Potential Change in the Nature of TSA Enforcement?

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Since its inception in 2001, the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) approach to enforcing its rules generally has been a cooperative one. Recognizing the burdens on industry from new security regulations and a difficult economic environment, and understanding that harsh enforcement actions can be counterproductive, TSA generally has sought to educate and train rather than punish. Monetary fines have been uncommon, and serious punishment – steep fines or greater severity – have been rare. While this approach has worked reasonably well, there is reason to believe it will not last forever.

  • A common catalyst to a “harder” enforcement approach (e.g., more frequent and larger fines) is public focus on instances of noncompliance.

A recent example of such a catalyst is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which has transformed the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service into the new “Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement” – enforcement is now part of the name.

  • The likelihood of public focus on noncompliance is related to at least two factors: the passage of time and the industry’s ability to affect a broad cross-section of the public.

Both factors weigh in favor of an eventual turn toward harder enforcement. First, TSA is still a new agency but, as time passes, the likelihood of a significant rule violation by the regulated industry increases. Second, TSA interacts constantly with a broad cross-section of the public, which is one of the reasons that TSA problems quickly draw broad public attention.

  • Another possible catalyst to a harder enforcement approach is the growth or diversification of the regulated industry.

When the regulated industry grows and/or diversifies, regulators may be more inclined to take a harder approach to enforcement as a way of signaling seriousness to industry participants.

Hard enforcement actions are often an efficient way for regulators to deliver a message to a large or diverse set of industry participants. When the participants are few in number or homogenous, education and training by the regulators may be sufficient, but a “severe fine” warning message is more likely to be carried quickly (by the trade press, lawyers and others) to a large or diverse set of industry participants.

The industry regulated by TSA has been growing and diversifying quickly. Among the recent additions are businesses newly regulated under the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP). These businesses, now approaching 1,000 in number, have to be regulated by TSA without a proportional increase in TSA resources, making an eventual resort to a harder enforcement approach more likely.

For all of these reasons, TSA-regulated companies would be wise to focus on compliance efforts as though TSA were going to take a harder approach to enforcement.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, International, Law Enforcement, Management & Administration, counterterrorism | Comments

Ted Alden on U.S. Competitive Immigration

Monday, August 9th, 2010

Every now and then you come across an article that cuts through the surface layer of superficial, short-term issues and illuminates the long-term challenges. Ted Alden’s thinking has always been this way, and he nails it in his recent article “U.S. Losing Ground in Competitive Immigration.” Ted lays out a cogent argument for encouraging the world’s brightest to study and stay in the United States.

Attracting skilled immigrants to maintain our intellectual and entrepreneurial edge may seem like an economic issue, but it is also a key national security issue. Economic and entrepreneurial dominance clearly strengthens our security. We have that dominance today, but, as Ted points out, there are several factors undermining our ability to maintain that dominance. While we can’t control all the factors, we can ensure that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot with bad policy.

This article, published in World Politics Review on July 27, 2010, is the best I’ve read on the topic.

U.S. Losing Ground in Competitive Immigration – World Politics Review

By Edward Alden

At the 2008 summer Olympic Games in Beijing, the New York Times columnist Tom Friedman observed something intriguing about the powerful American team, which won the overall medal count for the games. After wandering through the athletes’ village, he noted, “The Russian team all looks Russian; the African teams all look African; the Chinese team all looks Chinese; and the American team looks like all of them.” The United States, Friedman said, is the clearest example of a nation whose “strength comes from diversity.”

The most powerful nations in history have all followed a similar formula. In “Day of Empire,” a masterful survey of the rise and fall of empires from Ancient Rome to the contemporary United States, Yale law professor Amy Chua writes, “At any given historical moment, the most valuable human capital the world has to offer — whether in the form of intelligence, physical strength, skill, knowledge, creativity, networks, commercial innovation or technological invention — is never to be found in any one locale or within any one ethnic or religious group. To pull away from its rivals on a global scale, a society must pull into itself and motivate the world’s best and brightest, regardless of ethnicity, religion or background.”

In the contemporary world, no country has done this better than the United States. The U.S. remains more successful than any other nation in recruiting and retaining talented individuals from around the world — in sports, in entertainment, and most importantly in the scientific and technological fields that drive modern economies. But that lead has shrunk significantly over the past decade, with potentially serious implications for U.S. global leadership. The best university students, who once flocked to the United States, are finding other attractive options in the U.K., Australia and Canada — and even in long-closed Japan. Skilled workers, frustrated by the tight U.S. quotas on work visas and the long waits for permanent residency, are being lured by other countries that have overhauled their immigration laws and promise a smoother transition to a new life. And Chinese and Indians, the two largest groups of skilled migrants, have seen new job possibilities emerge in their own fast-growing economies, leading more to stay put or to come back home.

These trends have alarmed U.S. businesses, and some political leaders as well. Michael Bloomberg, the media magnate and outspoken mayor of New York, has warned that restrictive laws and a stifling immigration bureaucracy that drive away immigrant entrepreneurs and other skilled migrants are a policy of “national suicide.” He added, “I can’t think of any ways to destroy this country quite as direct and impactful as our immigration policy. We educate the best and the brightest, and then we don’t give them a green card.”

Read the piece in its entirety on World Politics Review.

Posted in Civil liberties & Privacy, Congress, Politics & PR, Immigration & Visa Policy, International, Management & Administration | Comments

Raising Caps, Killing Industry and Holding America Hostage

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

First off, let me state for the record that I am not taking a page out of the Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) book of apologies. I may have said some humdingers in the past, but I am not about to apologize to BP for events for which they are ultimately responsible.

That leads me to my second point. BP’s leadership (former and current) have publicly declared in every way imaginable that they will pay for the Gulf oil spill clean up and “make things right” for the people, businesses and environment impacted by what can only be described as a national nightmare. I take them at their word.

No company in the world has a worse brand image than BP, and the only way to restore the name and brand’s integrity is to literally do everything imaginable and unimaginable to make things right. BP’s new leadership, Robert Dudley, has made that pledge, and I also take him at his word.

With these two statements as a backdrop, every business leader in America, large or small, should be scared out of their mind at the actions of the U.S. House of Representatives this past week.

With a vote of 209 members for and 193 against, the House passed a bill to eliminate any and all liability caps for actions resulting from an oil spill or related mishap. While at first glance there may be reason to cheer our elected leaders for putting the screws to fat cat oil companies with monstrous profits and excessive salaries to make them pay for the mess they caused, these actions play right into the hands of people who are not necessarily our friends.

By eliminating the liability cap, small to mid-size oil companies (and yes there are small to mid-size oil companies) will find themselves operating in an area where they can no longer afford to do business. The costs and exposed risk is too high, and as a result, they will either have to close down or be bought up by other companies to do business. Even successful, large-scale companies may find these conditions perilous.

For as much as we may want to make sure that BP and others like them pay for their messes, imposing post-disaster reactionary measures without looking at the short and long-term consequences is almost as dangerous.

By no means am I am an apologist for oil or insurance industries, but the actions of the House this past week display a punitive, knee-jerk reaction to a very complex disaster that deserves a deeper breath of analysis by Congress and the Administration before any final decisions are made.

In a June 9 hearing before the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, industry experts and representatives of the insurance industry warned that with raised caps or no liability caps at all, petroleum industry members could be uninsurable. They additionally warned of the reinsurance pressures that would be required if such a scenario were to play out, as the existing insurance industry could not adequately cover the exposed liability. These experts also warned that the only oil industry operations that could possibly operate in these conditions and cover such exposed risks would be those oil companies entirely backed by nation states.

Under this scenario, it means the only companies our nation could depend on for oil would be companies owned and operated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela.

While the Saudi Kingdom may technically be a U.S. ally, they are not one of the first nations I think we can depend on when things get dicey. Furthermore, having American interests held captive by Aramco, the Saudi-owned and largest oil company in the world and Citgo, the Venezuela-owned company, is in no one’s national security interests.

For all of the warm fuzzies that Joe Kennedy’s TV ads may put on our TV screens, I think the anti-American, megalomania rants of Venezuela’s dictator, Hugo Chavez, are testament enough that he doesn’t care one bit about our oil needs or paying for any mess Citgo might be involved with in the future.

The House’s reactions are another classic move by Congress following a disaster of imposing sweeping and far-reaching decisions without examining the strategic implications of their legislated moves. Despite the counsel of hearing witnesses and others, House members (wanting to show the good people of their Districts that they are responsive and are on top of things by tarring and feathering the boogie men of the moment) have proven again that they have earned the full rights and privileges of their dismal approval ratings.

I want BP to pay for their mess. I also want other companies, governments and organizations that are at similar fault for future incidents to be held accountable for their screw-ups. But in a society that is already over-litigious to where we sue over spilled hot coffee and the emotional distress caused by certain paint colors, the House’s measures cause potentially greater peril than the original disaster.

Putting American companies and workers out of business because the risk can’t be adequately covered while leaving our energy needs beholden to people who don’t have our interests at heart is not a strategic solution. More thought, innovation and leadership are required to address these very complex problems, but those traits have been missing in Congress for a while now. With any luck, the Senate and future Congresses will provide those for us.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Management & Administration | Comments

If the Cargo is not Screened, It Does Not Fly

Friday, July 30th, 2010

By Adam Salerno

Businesses Reengineering the Supply Chain for 100 Percent Screening

When Congress passed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the law mandated 100 Percent Screening of cargo onboard passenger aircraft “commensurate with checked baggage.”  The deadline for that mandate is this weekend, August 1, 2010.  The law seeks to ensure that all 20 million lbs. of cargo is screened in advance of flights for explosive detection prior to transport.  As Douglas Brittin, the Director of Cargo Security at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) says, “On August 1, if the cargo is not screened, it does not fly”.

In today’s economy, a vibrant supply chain can ensure that companies have instant access to overnight delivery to nearly 85 percent of the world’s population.  While a changing world dictates new necessities to secure the supply chain, the need for expedited trade is an important priority that must be maintained.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recognizes this fact, which is why we support a multi layered risk based approach to security which maximizes effectiveness and minimizes impact on businesses.

As with any unfunded mandate, the private sector was tasked with financing this effort and working with TSA to ensure this goal is accomplished. The cost has been dramatic.  Most air carriers estimate their costs to be in the tens of millions of dollars range. That figure does not include delays or increasing lead time in the supply chain. To add complexity to the issue, the mandate also included all incoming cargo from around the globe be screened. In short, the law forced companies to completely reengineer their supply chain.

To push the mandate out of the confines of the airport, TSA developed the Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP).  CCSP allows other trusted shippers in the supply chain to participate in the screening process, by securing their facilities, and the chain of custody from manufacturing to the belly of the aircraft.  This too proved extremely costly for industry, but something that businesses in all modes of transportation have stepped up for.

Once the domestic deadline is hit, the focus will shift to international inbound flights. TSA needs to step forward at this point and begin to recognize foreign screening methods.  Again, because of the nature of the unfunded mandate, it is clear that TSA has not had the resources to pursue this goal yet.  However, programs like the German Aviation Security Program or the newly released European Union Framework 300, Rule 185 are comprehensive programs that mirror the basic fundamentals of the TSA program domestically.  Working with the international community to ensure that our programs are mutually accepted is essential to ensure that businesses are not duplicating an already burdensome process.

It has been a long and costly road for industry, but with the August 1, 2010 deadline just days away, many are feeling cautiously optimistic that the deadline will be met. Thanks to the ingenuity of the freight forwarders, the airlines, and participants in CCSP, because without their time, effort, and serious investment, a dramatic halt of trade would have become reality. Their investment in security ensured that commerce will continue to move forward at the speed businesses rely on in the air environment.

Adam Salerno is a Senior Manager in the National Security and Emergency Preparedness Department at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He also manages the Chamber’s Global Supply Chain Security Working Group.

This piece was originally posted on The ChamberPost, the blog for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Posted in Aviation and airport security, Congress, Politics & PR, Homeland Security Industry & Private Sector, Homeland State & Local, International, Management & Administration, Science & Technology, Supply Chain Security, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

FEMA’s Steps in the Right Direction

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

As the country celebrates the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it presents an opportunity to see how far we have come since the enactment of one of our country’s great civil rights laws, but it is also a measure of how much farther we have to go. When it comes to this anniversary and FEMA, Administrator Craig Fugate has let it be known that he recognizes how much there is for his agency and our country to do in making sure people with disabilities and special needs are not forgotten during times of emergencies/disasters.

In posts on the FEMA website, as well as a post contributed to CNN, Fugate shares in moving terms the consequences of forgetting those who need an extra hand.

While many will cynically see these efforts as pure “Washington spin” to coincide with a particular historical anniversary, they are actually very bold steps. Fugate has essentially put himself and his agency front and center on the public stage and declared, “the previous status quo of handling these issues does not cut it.  We have to do better and we will do better.”

In a town where people of every political stripe are looking for measures to point out one another’s shortcomings and failures, Fugate has put his agency and his professional community (emergency management) on the line to address needs that have been dramatically under served and unacknowledged for far too long.

Washington is full of people who make promises and bold statements but have little courage or willingness to deliver or back them up. Fugate has shown again his ability to be the un-Washington guy by admitting the shortcomings of the past while carving a path towards a better future. He did this early in his tenure by taking on the emotional issues associated with dealing with children in emergencies and disasters, and he appears to have no reservations about taking on this equally necessary and emotional issue as well.

With the recent signature of an MOA with the National Council on Independent Living and his other public comments, including those made in his confirmation hearing (Spring 2009), Fugate has laid down the very performance metrics by which he and his colleagues will be held accountable. That’s a metric that I don’t think any other DHS leader has put upon themselves or their departmental component, and it is worthy of note.

There are no wiggle words associated with what he’s offered either. While he has not promised that everything will be perfect, (an impossibility for any organization, especially one that works in disasters), he has gone on the record that all of us will see the improvements in planning, operations and performance when it comes to the disabled/special needs communities. Such improvements are twenty-plus years overdue.

For those of us who have full mobility, we can not begin to appreciate the fear, frustration and angst of those who can not exit a building with ease during an emergency. Maybe that’s why I and others feel with the bold and personal commitments by the FEMA administrator that we’re taking the steps in the right direction. The way he has given his word on these issues is different from the promises of the past. He’s made this personal.

In taking on the leadership role that will carve the path to the necessary improvements, Fugate has also put this issue into our own individual laps as well. He’s asked us to do our part in the planning, preparedness and response for family, friends, co-workers and neighbors that could use that extra hand. Those actions alone will save countless lives and under those terms, it’s hard not to recognize how personal this issue really is.

Posted in Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Ideology & Public Diplomacy, Management & Administration | Comments

Politics vs. Security – A Tale of Two Committees

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Two Senate committees, three chemical security bills and one issue to rule them all – the role of so-called Inherently Safer Technologies (ISTs) in America’s approach to safeguarding communities from acts of terrorism.  With DHS’ Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) set to expire in October, lawmakers in the Senate are taking steps to keep it alive. What form the program ultimately takes will depend on whether legislators choose to focus on politics or national security.

Here’s where members agree:
1. CFATS, at least in its general form, needs to be maintained
2. The exclusion of drinking water and wastewater systems from CFATS (or a CFATS-like regime) presents a “security gap” due to their use of hazardous chemicals, such as gaseous chlorine

Here’s where members disagree:
1. Whether the existing CFATS program should be made permanent
2. Whether CFATS should be expanded to include other provisions, such as a requirement that certain facilities assess and/or implement IST

Due to jurisdictional issues in the Senate, the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC) can only address provisions relating to chemical facilities. The Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee can only address provisions relating to drinking water and wastewater systems.

Both committees held proceedings on chemical security this week. Here’s how things panned out:

  • HSGAC’s Ranking Member, Susan Collins (R-ME), chose to scrap her own bill (S. 2996, the Continuing Chemical Facilities Antiterrorism Security Act of 2010) in order to report out an amended version of H.R. 2868, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 – which would now extend CFATS for three-years and excludes IST provisions. It passed 13-0 with bipartisan support.
  • EPW used Senator Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) bill (S. 3598, the Secure Water Facilities Act) as a backdrop for its hearing.  S. 3598, which includes a strong IST component, does not have bipartisan support.  The hearing was used to extol the virtues of providing the government with IST mandate authority.

HSGAC, which spent most of its time addressing how factors such as risk, vulnerabilities, and consequence impact chemical security, passed a Republican-drafted amendment with unanimous support and moved us closer to establishing a permanent CFATS program. EPW used a hearing as a platform to play politics.

You tell me who got it right.

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Emergency Preparedness & Response, Management & Administration, WMD, Chemical & Biological, counterterrorism | Comments

Lip Service and the National Infrastructure Bank

Monday, July 26th, 2010

In 2008, when the then Obama Campaign issued its proposed vision for homeland security, it impressed a lot of people when it described the creation of a national infrastructure bank. This federally chartered structure would fund critical projects around the country by making the necessary investments in roads, bridges, utilities and more.

While not a new or novel idea, the fact that the then-Senator from Illinois’ campaign put the concept into his stated policy positions showed everyone that his team had done their homework in embracing a new and proactive tool to address the need to repair and invest in America’s infrastructures. With interest from Congressional Republicans and Democrats, the concept of the infrastructure bank would allow for a more responsive and attentive means in deciding which structures received funding.

As recent history has shown, many infrastructure projects around the country are funded by an increasingly political appropriations process that seems to reward States and Congressional Districts based more upon political power than actual need. One needs only look at the projects funded by the annual Appropriations bills of the House and Senate, as well as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation, to see who the real winners are. As a result, some of the infamous projects (such as Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” and any number of construction projects in the late Senator Robert Byrd’s home of West Virginia) were able to flourish.

Upon their taking ownership of the White House in January 2009, the new Obama Administration followed through on its suggested campaign policy idea by stating that establishing a national infrastructure bank was one of their priorities. In fact, it was posted right off the White House website and was one of the first items detailed by the new Administration when they took over.

Once again their words offered hope of forthcoming “change.” Giving even more rise to these aspirations, in the weeks before taking the Oath of Office and in the weeks after, the President talked boldly about making investments in America’s infrastructure as a means of getting hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans back to work.

With senior Congressional champions for the infrastructure bank in the wings, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), two of the most senior Members of Congress, were ready to work with the Administration to make it happen.

With the economy in dire shape, the new Obama Administration signed off on a Recovery Act package full of plenty of spending but none of the real change to how infrastructure was funded.  To them, the money needed to get out to states and locals as soon as possible, so they used the same old means to fund projects around the country. Once again, the mechanisms of old that had funded projects for decades were once again flush with cash. In the year and a half since then, critics on both sides of the political aisle see a package that did not perform as promised or yield the results anyone wanted.

When the time came for the Obama Administration to put forward its own budget, much to the surprise of many, the national infrastructure bank was nowhere to be found. But there was still hope.

In a May 5 appearance at the Center for National Policy, Rep. DeLauro (D-CT), one of the most passionate Members of the House, encouraged the Administration to “act boldly” in fighting for the infrastructure bank. She asserted that throughout our country’s tough times, our Presidents think and act boldly, pointing to Lincoln’s decision to fund the railroad to reach the Pacific; FDR’s decision to build TVA and other projects during the Depression; Eisenhower’s decision to create a national interstate highway system; and Kennedy’s pledge to go to the moon. It was her hope that Obama would do the same when it came to creating the bank to invest in America’s national infrastructure.

It would seem that her hopes and those of many who want to see the national infrastructure bank become a reality are fleeting. Despite public pleas from some of the country’s leading voices on infrastructure investment issues (e.g., PA Gov. Ed Rendell, CA Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the US Chamber of Commerce and more), the infrastructure bank remains an idea whose time has not come.

Despite having windows of opportunity with the 2009 Recovery Act, last year’s budget cycle and even this year’s Appropriations process, the Obama Administration has failed to provide any leadership initiative or requisite details on making the bank a real 21st century tool for renewing and investing in America’s infrastructure. Even with Members of both political parties open to the idea and wanting to see how it would operate, the details for this concept seemed to be as vacuous as the leadership to make it happen.

This is a profound disappointment for those of us who champion critical infrastructure issues.  It’s an even greater disappointment when you consider the state of our infrastructure across this country. The ASCE Report Cards and other studies have been blistering in their assessments of America’s infrastructure, but for reasons that defy any sense of logic, the Administration and Congress continue to fund the very mechanisms that have failed to improve our infrastructure standing for the past quarter century.

A famous quote attributed to Einstein comes to mind, where insanity is defined as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The Obama Administration has had three exceptional opportunities to start a new page in how we fund our country’s infrastructure needs. Instead, they keep singing the same tune as their predecessors, as opposed to being the professed “change” they promised to voters. That is a measure in which no one can take pride or claim accomplishment.

Maybe in the new Congress, they will fulfill Rep. DeLauro’s vision and “act boldly.” Maybe they will also find the courage to change their tune and deliver the real leadership and necessary details this initiative really needs. Until they do, the only accurate term to describe their position on the infrastructure bank is “lip service” and that is never in short supply in Washington. I guess some things never “change.”

Posted in Congress, Politics & PR, Critical Infrastructure, Featured Feed, Homeland State & Local, Management & Administration | Comments

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