http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/03/11/kansas-city-coverage/ News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security today. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:16:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 http://www.hlswatch.com/2009/03/11/kansas-city-coverage/comment-page-1/#comment-134559 William R. Cumming Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:43:52 +0000 http://www.hlswatch.com/?p=2117#comment-134559 Just noting for the record that the FUSION Centers whatever their performance were the one real reform of domestic intel system to prevent terrorism by enhanced information sharing. They are necessar and must be staffed and funded properly. But they must also have clear guidelines under which to operate. Remember that domestic intel and critical infrastructure protection (including Cyber Security) were the principal rational provided by the 9/11 Commission and others for the creation of a DHS. Border Protection and Controls and even FEMA inclusion were NOT a principal rationale. A good history of the formation of DHS is unavailable in my judgement, and what is clear is that the Hart-Rudman's conclusions did not really include formation of a new Cabinet Department although frequently cited for that purpose. Personally I think that DHS should be largely focused on WMD incident/event protection and prevention and preparedness and response and recovery. There is still no coherent analysis of the the non-DHS players in the Homeland Security role. The result is certain critical programs, functions, and activities continue as step-children. Again in my opinion. A specific example would be the demise of the NEST teams, with the convoluted switch over from DOE to DHS in an actual event. We need this capability verified as existing now and 24/7 365 days a year. Again the proper subject of Congressional oversight. Just noting for the record that the FUSION Centers whatever their performance were the one real reform of domestic intel system to prevent terrorism by enhanced information sharing. They are necessar and must be staffed and funded properly. But they must also have clear guidelines under which to operate. Remember that domestic intel and critical infrastructure protection (including Cyber Security) were the principal rational provided by the 9/11 Commission and others for the creation of a DHS. Border Protection and Controls and even FEMA inclusion were NOT a principal rationale. A good history of the formation of DHS is unavailable in my judgement, and what is clear is that the Hart-Rudman’s conclusions did not really include formation of a new Cabinet Department although frequently cited for that purpose. Personally I think that DHS should be largely focused on WMD incident/event protection and prevention and preparedness and response and recovery. There is still no coherent analysis of the the non-DHS players in the Homeland Security role. The result is certain critical programs, functions, and activities continue as step-children. Again in my opinion. A specific example would be the demise of the NEST teams, with the convoluted switch over from DOE to DHS in an actual event. We need this capability verified as existing now and 24/7 365 days a year. Again the proper subject of Congressional oversight.

]]>