Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

December 11, 2014

Resilience by Design

On Monday the Mayor of Los Angeles released a report entitled Resilience by Design.  It gives particular attention to how Los Angeles can take steps now to mitigate the consequences of major risks, especially an earthquake.

This is the kind of document that — too often — only appears after a major event.  It is significant that one of the first steps Mayor Garcetti took upon his election was appointment of a Science Advisor for Seismic Safety and tasking her to undertake this analysis.

The report gives particular attention to:

  • Resilience of building stock — It is interesting that this is treated as a matter of economic resilience as well as public safety.
  • Resilience of the water system — This is what worries me most regarding the vulnerability of the Los Angeles basin.
  • Resilience of the telecommunications systems — This is a key interdependency that can divide or multiply every other response and recovery capability.

There are, obviously, other crucial problems.  But too many of these kind of studies try to take-on too much.  If everything is a priority, really nothing is a priority.

These are three strategic elements within the ability of city government to seriously engage.  Enhancing the resilience of these three elements will improve the ability of the city and the whole community to address other challenges.

See the full report here.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

Reasoning together

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on December 11, 2014

In regard to the Senate report on CIA interrogation practices, and the (non?) efficacy of the Grand Jury system, and action or inaction in Syria or Ukraine or the Ebola zone, and Central American poverty and violence, and border security, and mass surveillance, and inter-religious conflict, and… well, the list could easily continue… a few incomplete thoughts:

The inevitable hypocrisy, which is associated with all the collective activities of the human race, springs chiefly from this source: that individuals have a moral code which makes the actions of collective man an outrage to their conscience. They therefore invent romantic and moral interpretations of the real facts, preferring to obscure rather than reveal the true character of their collective behavior. Sometimes they are as anxious to offer moral justifications for the brutalities from which they suffer as for those which they commit. The fact that the hypocrisy of man’s group behavior… expresses itself not only in terms of self-justification but in terms of moral justification of human behavior in general, symbolizes one of the tragedies of the human spirit: its inability to conform its collective life to its individual ideals. As individuals, men believe they ought to love and serve each other and establish justice between each other. As racial, economic and national groups they take for themselves, whatever their power can command.

Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society

There are at bottom only three alternative routes or approaches to follow in making moral decisions.  They are (1) the legalistic; (2) the antinomian, the opposite extreme — i.e., a lawless or unprincipled approach; and (3) the situational.  All three have played their part in the history of Western morals, legalism being by far the most common and persistent.

Joseph F. Fletcher, Situation Ethics

The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of law, it is absolute because it concerns everything concrete…. The absolutism of love is its power to go into the concrete situation, to discover what is demanded by the predicament of the concrete to which it turns.  Therefore, love can never become fanatical in a fight for the absolute, or cynical under the impact of the relative.

Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology

If you perceive something simple and/or obvious in any of the foregoing, please read again.  Then as the calendar continues into our hemisphere’s darkest of dark nights, consider please how we might more constructively engage together over treacherous issues of ethics and morality.  What do we ask? How do we ask it? What do we say (or write) and when do we remain quiet?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

December 10, 2014

Senator McCain on American Torture

Filed under: Congress and HLS,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Arnold Bogis on December 10, 2014

Obviously, the big news is yesterday’s release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA Interrogation Techniques following 9/11.  The text of the publicly available document can be found here.

The Minority viewpoint can be downloaded here.

Additional views here.

I can’t think of much to add to this discussion, at least at this point.  Most likely one’s opinion aligns closely with one’s political affiliation.  Or, at the very least, was cemented years ago with little chance of movement caused by newly declassified details.  I could be wrong.

Regardless, I was moved by Senator McCain’s statement in support of the release of this report and thought it worth sharing.

 

If you’d like to dive into the weeds of the report, the good folks at the Lawfare Blog are methodically posting direct comparisons between the majority’s conclusions, the minority’s dissent, and the CIA’s rebuttal.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

December 9, 2014

Ottawa Attacks Reveal Public’s Confusion About Terrorism

Filed under: Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Christopher Bellavita on December 9, 2014

Today’s post was written by Jason Nairn.  It appeared originally on the Homeland Security Roundtable blog.


The US media and news-consuming public are known for their short attention spans when it comes to domestic events.  A novel major story quickly refocuses attention, often leaving important issues without context or follow-on reporting.  This phenomenon, one that I like to call “Issue Attention Deficit Disorder (IADD)”, is exacerbated when the event in question is not domestic.

Major issues in Africa, Asia and Europe are simply underreported in the US media, and though they often do not, major events in Canada should merit our attention.  Ottawa is only a 9-hour drive (471 miles or 911 kilometers) from Washington DC, the rough equivalent of driving from Detroit, MI, to Marquette, MI (455 miles), or from Nashville, TN to Chicago, IL (471 Miles).

Canadian media coverage of the recent attacks in Ottawa involving the gunman Michael Zehaf-Bibeau has revealed a glimpse of the Canadian public’s attitudes about terrorism.  Two stories that ran recently in the National Post provide some valuable lessons for followers of homeland security trends.  First, according to a poll conducted in Canada of over 1500 citizens, only 36% of those that responded would characterize the attack on Parliament as terrorism.  Second, in a propaganda magazine ISIS took credit for inspiring both the attack on Parliament and an earlier attack on a Canadian Warrant Officer by another individual said to be a “jihadist”.

Homeland security professionals have been heard to lament the “nothing happens until something moves” effect of support for homeland security.  The idea is that only after a disaster or major event, like a terrorist attack, is attention refocused on the support of homeland security goals and objectives.  Based on the Canadian news reports, even serious attacks may not drive the public’s support of security priorities.

If an attack on the seat of government does not qualify as terrorism in the eyes of the public, but qualifies as supporting the mission in the eyes of the terrorist group, then something is awry.

Even if our neighbors don’t use the phrase “homeland security” as we do, a fundamental issue remains.  Getting the word out about what terrorism is, what homeland or domestic security is, and how to support resilience in our communities and institutions should be a focus that we maintain beyond the next headline.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

December 5, 2014

Friday Free Forum

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on December 5, 2014

William R. Cumming Forum

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

December 4, 2014

100,000 Doors

Filed under: Biosecurity,Preparedness and Response,Public Health & Medical Care,Strategy — by Philip J. Palin on December 4, 2014

Recently my non-blogging life has experienced a set of interesting, but time-consuming convergences.  As a result my engagement at HLSWatch will be constrained for several weeks, potentially a few months.  

In my judgment the task of this blog is to amplify, aggregate, analyze and occasionally advocate.  Until more time emerges from the convergence, I will mostly use this Thursday post to amplify a situation someone else has written about, but that has not gotten much mainstream attention.

The Ebola threat continues to be deadly in West Africa and despite considerable progress still presents a potential threat to global health.  Here is the December 3 WHO Situation Update.

Local (whether Dallas or Monrovia) and global engagement of this threat has also been an interesting case-study in prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response, and — we hope — recovery.  It has been fascinating, at least to me, how crucial “whole community” engagement has been to bending the transmission curve.  

For reasons that are not yet entirely clear, Liberia and Guinea have made much more progress on changing population behaviors than has Sierra Leone.  This is despite considerable efforts by the Freetown government for a period of several months.  On Black Friday the New York Times ran a related story on its front page.  The following is from Tuesday’s Concord Times, a leading newspaper in Sierra Leone. It was written by Mohamed Massaquoi.

–+–

The Disaster Management Department in the Office of National Security, with support from UNDP, will be embarking on a door-to-door campaign in new Ebola epicentres across the country, targeting 100,000 households in the next two weeks in Waterloo, Port Loko and Moyamba with specific life-saving information.

The campaign, which is expected to reach one million people, has commenced following the recruitment and training of 300 community disaster management volunteers in Moyamba last week.

The volunteers, drawn from localities in new Ebola epicentres, will disseminate information ranging from the importance of early treatment, keeping families safe from infection while waiting for help, to welcoming survivors back into the community as a way of reducing stigma associated with Ebola.

The UNDP-supported campaign is part of national efforts to engender behaviour change in order to stem the spread of the Ebola virus disease in Sierra Leone.

In the past 21 days, Sierra Leone has recorded an exponential rise in the number of Ebola infections. Latest WHO figures show that while reported case incidence is stable in Guinea with 148 confirmed cases reported in the week to 23 November, stable or declining in Liberia – 67 new confirmed cases in the week to 23 November, Sierra Leone recorded 385 new confirmed cases in the week to 23 November.

In addition to the continued rise of cases of Ebola in Sierra Leone, the epicentre of the outbreak has shifted from the east of the country (Kailahun and Kenema) to the north-west, including Bombali, iron ore mining district of Port Loko and the Western Area, especially Waterloo and Freetown.

The Western Area continues to have the highest rate of infection, with 280 cumulative cases in the past week. Port Loko is also a major area of concern, with 120 cases in the past 7 days, according to WHO figures.

Chief Alimamy Bethembeng II of Waterloo, himself a volunteer in the door-to-door campaign in his community, enthused that with the right information, using face-to-face methods and using people who are part of the community, things would hopefully change. “We have to defend our communities from Ebola,” he said as he moved from house-to-house in the Faya-Mambo neighbourhood in Waterloo, one of the worst hit areas in the Western Area.

During one of the training sessions in Port Loko, Director of Disaster Management Department, Mary Mye-Kamara, said that the face-to-face campaign has proved very successful in slums across Freetown, and that it is the preferred method for effective awareness-raising on Ebola.

She said: “People in some of these communities are still suspicious of outsiders coming into their neighbourhoods and villages telling them about Ebola. Some of them think that these outsiders are the ones spreading the virus. This is why we are engaging the local people, training them so that they will do the awareness raising themselves. That is the only way forward now.”

She added: “Without community ownership this is difficult, even impossible to make any meaningful headway. The imams need to understand and accept that they cannot be doing the same burial rites like before…otherwise the virus will spread.”

Mye-Kamara noted further that denial is still very high, as is distrust and reticence in communities, thus urging everyone to get involved in the campaign.

“People said to us why should they be bothered to take their sick relatives to the hospital and treatment centres when the ones who had been taken before did not return? ‘They are going to die anyway’. But now we are saying to our compatriots that, with early treatment, there is a huge chance of survival. We are showing them evidence of people who have recovered from the virus. They are seeing it and we continue to hope things will change. Ebola will go,” she said.

Denial, suspicion about the spread of the disease, low level of knowledge and information are still very much prevalent especially among the poor in urban and rural areas. The face-to-face campaign hopes to target the hard-to-reach villages and communities with the right information in Port Loko, Moyamba and Waterloo in particularly, where the virus is spreading.

UNDP Programme Manager Saskia Marijnissen says, “Stopping the Ebola outbreak will not only depend on improved knowledge, but also on a change in attitude and practices. Our approach actively engages community members in a dialogue to motivate behaviour change.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

December 2, 2014

Security, Liberty and Architecture: Creating Safe—and Safe-Feeling— Public Spaces

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Christopher Bellavita on December 2, 2014

Today’s post was written by Justin M. Schumacher, and first appeared on Medium’s homeland security site.

 

NewImage

 

 


Open societies often struggle to balance values that can conflict with one another. Rights and responsibilities, freedom and equality, cohesion and diversity, openness and order are a few examples. Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, one of the most prominent such struggles is the re-balancing of security and liberty.

Much of this fight is taking place behind the scenes, in political battles over the powers of law enforcement, legal arguments over automatic license plate readers’ data collection, executive orders on the detainment of terrorism suspects, or hacktivist protests to it all by groups like Anonymous. But I’d like to focus on one of the most visible aspects of this shifting mindset: what does a safe and secure public space look like?

In the United States prior to 9/11 fear of terrorism was almost nonexistent, and public spaces had far less security than they do today. Much of current security was installed rapidly on an ad hoc basis, resulting in airport screening systems established in awkward places and ugly jersey barriers placed around all kinds of sensitive buildings. All around the country, fueled by a flood of homeland security funding, public spaces became more and more securitized, usually according to assessments of criticality and threat.

Current US Embassy in London; built during the cold war to be imposing upon its neighbors, with piecemeal security features added over the years that enhance its unwelcoming nature.

A decade has now passed, and social scientists are asking questions about the effects this security is having on us, individually and as a society. Because we are relatively new to threats in the public sphere many are looking to the UK for lessons. Having endured bombings annually for a generation during the Troubles, British architects, security planners and sociologists have a lot to teach.

Early on, the British did much as we have done since 9/11, installing barriers and bollards anywhere they might save some lives. But as the years passed, their approach became much more nuanced as they realized that over-securitizing public spaces drives away the public, which increases crime. This appears to happen in part because security features lead people to believe that crime is commonplace and increasing even if it is rare and decreasing, and in part because simply seeing security features causes anxiety and discomfort.

This realization has led to a number of projects in cooperation with the government and academics like Jon Coaffee that try to determine how best to design public spaces so that they are both safe and welcoming. They’ve published many documents, both instructional and intellectual, that might be useful for American security planners. In particular, Coaffee describes a spectrum of visibility / hidden measures that should be considered to achieve the right level of security while maintaining the character of place.

justin s 1

When well implemented, these ideas can lead to security features that are not only unintimidating but truly add to what a place has to offer. One example is the new US Embassy in London, currently under construction and shown in a rendering at the top of this article. It stands in stark contrast to the current embassy (shown in the smaller image). The tiered gardens and water features will make working there or walking by a much more comfortable experience, but they are designed to provide even better security than the maze of fences and barriers around the building’s predecessor.

photo credit Populous Brand Activation

Perhaps the best example of this theory put into practice is Emirates Stadium, home of the Arsenal football (soccer) team, which includes features like the auto barrier shown at right. More effective than bollards or jersey barriers, this security tool has itself become a draw with fans often going out of their way to get their pictures taken with it. Coaffee and his allies point to Emirates as proof that one can implement measures that meet security goals without the negative effects that so often come with an overt security presence.

Britain first began suffering car bomb attacks from the IRA in 1969 (1971 on the British mainland) and it took decades before universal measures were in place to combine crime prevention, counter-terrorism, and social benefits in public space design. Today, in addition to just providing guidance like that linked above, every local police department has an architectural liaison officer to assist with just this on all public and private projects at no cost to builders. By linking architecture and urban planning with law enforcement and security planning, they are working to ensure that future construction will be both safe and welcoming.

The construction of public spaces can take generations, but we in the United States need not wait a few decades to get started on planning for what we want those spaces to look like in the future. We should learn from the experience of the UK, adapting their lessons and their tools to our own urban design initiatives. Doing so will help ensure that the public square of tomorrow will do more than just be safe; it will feel safe.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

December 1, 2014

Serial Security Failures in Ferguson

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Nick Catrantzos on December 1, 2014

Is it only me, or does anyone else wonder how a governor can mobilize his state’s national guard and law enforcement, make highly visible preparations for an even more highly anticipated riot, and yet allow rioters to get away with torching two police cars and 25 businesses while looting and trashing other establishments they didn’t set ablaze? When did active security measures take a back seat to lofty pronouncements and highfaluting exhortations to please, oh, please, don’t express your understandable outrage in a violent and unproductive way? Ferguson, it seems, has become the poster child for how not to prevent a foreseeable riot.

What Could Anybody Do Anyway?

There are laws, specialized knowledge, and institutional memory available to use for anyone serious about preventing the kind of wanton destruction that went unchecked. Here follows a sampling to illustrate what was missing in the aftermath of the highly publicized and presumptive riot trigger that followed November 24th’s announced grand jury finding that there was insufficient cause to try Officer Darren Wilson for killing Michael Brown.

1. Absence of leadership.

From Army Field Manual 19-15, Civil Disturbances, p. 2-2:

Leadership has a profound effect on the intensity and direction of crowd behavior…. The first person to give clear orders in an authoritative manner is likely to be followed.

COMMENT: Where was such leadership on the streets of Ferguson last week once crowds started turning aggressive?

2. Use of legal means to control crowds. There are usually options for dispersing volatile crowds before they turn into aggressive mobs. Declaring them unlawful assemblies is often a step in that direction, and the means to do that exists in public law. As an example, in California, public law offers value by setting forth clear definitions which authorities may use to get the upper hand on an unruly crowd before it gets out of control.

From California Penal Code:

404. (a) Any use of force or violence, disturbing the public peace, or any threat to use force or violence, if accompanied by immediate power of execution, by two or more persons acting together, and without authority of law, is a riot.

404.6. (a) Every person who with the intent to cause a riot does an act or engages in conduct that urges a riot, or urges others to commit acts of force or violence, or the burning or destroying of property, and at a time and place and under circumstances that produce a clear and present and immediate danger of acts of force or violence or the burning or destroying of property, is guilty of incitement to riot.

(b) Incitement to riot is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

406. Whenever two or more persons, assembled and acting together, make any attempt or advance toward the commission of an act which would be a riot if actually committed, such assembly is a riot.

407. Whenever two or more persons assemble together to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner, such assembly is an unlawful assembly.

COMMENT: Doesn’t Missouri have similar, legitimate grounds for crowd dispersal? If so, why didn’t someone in authority declare an unlawful assembly and take prompt action to disperse the crowd before it wreaked havoc on shops and cars?

3. Factors to monitor and mitigate that were nevertheless ignored.

From Peter E. Tarlow, Event Risk Management and Safety (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002), pp. 98-99

Components of a Crowd Likely to Riot

1. Mainly young people.

2. Good weather.

3. Abundance of bored people.

4. Inadequate security — too little coverage in early stages.

5. Darkness.

COMMENTS: The last two items were particularly ignored at the expense of business owners and employees who saw the source of their livelihood go up in flames last week. Media coverage of law enforcement and national guard mobilization suggested that uniformed responders were being kept out of sight of protestors and news cameras, ostensibly to avoid inciting aggression. This was precisely the wrong thing to do. Instead, their protective value would have been in exercising a presence to deter lawlessness, particularly if led intelligently by experienced authorities who know the importance of keeping a crowd moving, keeping them engaged, and keeping the high ground in order to be able to exercise authority and rapidly disperse them (tactics addressed at greater length in Jane’s Facility Security Handbook, 2nd Edition, D. Shawn Fenn, et al, Surrey: Jane’s Information Group, 2006).

What about darkness? Timing last week’s announcement for the hours of darkness seemed unwise because darkness masks identities, which in turn encourages agitators, looters, and predators to strike with lower risk of being caught or stopped. Besides, there was an earlier signal that masking identity was going to be easy for thugs planning to mix among nonviolent protestors with little fear of being unmasked.

What was this signal? Well before the rioting, faces in the crowd were getting away with sporting Guy Fawkes masks, ostensibly in expressing solidarity with generic resistance movements. This transparent canard doubles as a test, and authorities failed. Anyone serious about keeping the peace while allowing for nonviolent demonstrations would not have hobbled police by timing the triggering event to take place in the hours of darkness or by allowing people to conceal their identities so openly.

Lessons We Don’t Learn

America is no stranger to peaceful protest and catastrophic riot alike. We should know better by now. Perhaps the day has passed when the likes of the Texas Rangers would allocate no more than a single ranger to quell a lynch mob. (How? They would have the ranger worm his way through the crowd until reaching the instigator who was busy inflaming the mob. Then the ranger would beat the living tar out of the instigator, and the mob, seeing this, would lose its motivation and self-disperse.) Today, times may be different, but crowd behavior remains predictable, hence capable of being managed.

Failure to check the violent and destructive force of the Ferguson mob was a foreseeable failure of management, of leadership. And it was probably a failure of top management, since there had to be someone in law enforcement with the experience and expertise to get better results with the right use of available resources.

And so, when cases like this suggest that failure is not an option, why does failure turn out to be standard equipment?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

November 28, 2014

Friday Free Forum

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on November 28, 2014

William R. Cumming Forum

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

November 27, 2014

A context for thanks-giving

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on November 27, 2014

Many of us are cognitively — perhaps genetically — predisposed to romanticize the past and catastrophize the present.  Our expectations of the future are more malleable, but usually reflect how our internal narrative frames past and present.

Where have we been? How did we get here?  Where are we going?  A few personal snapshots, with a very wide lens:

1944: The year opens with Nazis controlling most of Europe. In the Spring the Soviet Army shifts from defense to offense. On June 6 the Allies launch the Normandy Invasion. In November 1944 the Auschwitz Concentration Camp is closed, after murdering over 1 million mostly Polish Jews.  Chechens are internally deported to Siberia. Over 100,000 Japanese-American citizens are interned for another year.  The Supreme Court avoids a substantive decision on internment, allowing the practice to continue. The Warsaw Massacre.  Paris is liberated.  Roosevelt is reelected for a fourth term.  The Senate consists of 57 Democrats, 38 Republicans, and one other.  The House is made up of 242 Democrats, 191 Republicans, and two others.  US GDP per capita in 2009 dollars: $16,181.

1954:  Crimea is transferred from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Ukranian SSR.  First mass vaccination against polio.  Puerto Rican nationalists open fire on the US House of Representatives, wounding five.  Army-McCarthy Hearings.  The French are defeated in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, leading several months later to the withdrawal of colonial forces and the creation of North and South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.  In Brown v. Board of Education the US Supreme Court unanimously finds that segregated schools are unconstitutional.  The Algerian War of Independence begins.  The Soviet Union for the first time tests a thermonuclear weapon.  The Dow Jones Industrial Average — for the first time — exceeds its previous peak achieved just before the crash of 1929.  In the newly elected Senate the Republicans and Democrats each have 47… with 2 others.  In the House there are 232 Democrats and 203 Republicans. US GDP per capita in 2009 dollars: $15,745.

1964: Plans are announced to build the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan.  The 24th Amendment to the Constitution is adopted banning poll taxes. De facto segregation of New York City public schools prompts a boycott by most African American and Puerto Rican families.  The man later convicted of murdering Medgar Evars is freed as a result of a hung jury. The summer is punctuated by race riots in New York City, Rochester, Philadelphia and elsewhere. Martin Luther King is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  The New York Times reports that Kitty Genovese is murdered in plain sight while her neighbors refuse to get involved. Three civil rights workers are murdered in rural Mississippi by local Klansmen and a deputy sheriff. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 becomes law.  Berkeley Free Speech Movement.  Johnson wins a landslide against Goldwater.  The elections produce a Senate with 68 Democrats and 32 Republicans and a House with 295 Democrats and a 140 Republicans. US GDP per capita in 2009 dollars: $19,455.

1974:  First OPEC oil embargo ends. Oil prices are 4-times higher than when the embargo started.  Patty Hearst is kidnapped, later cooperates with Symbionese Liberation Army in bank robbery. Universal Product Code (UPC) is first used to sell a retail product. April Super-Outbreak of tornadoes kills over three hundred in the central US.  President Richard Nixon resigns.  Car bombs are used in Dublin, Birmingham and elsewhere as “The Troubles” escalate. World Trade Organization starts.  India joins the nuclear weapons club.  The annual inflation rate for 1974 is eleven percent. The mid-term elections return a Senate with 57 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 2 others. US GDP per capita in 2009 dollars: $25,227.

1984: Hezbollah car-bombs the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut killing 24.  US Marines withdraw from Lebanon (following October, 1983 bombing that killed 241 US military personnel.) The Provisional IRA fails in an attempt to assassinate Prime Minister Thatcher and most of the British cabinet.  Prime Minister of India is assassinated, followed by sectarian strife with over 10,000 killed. Famine in Ethiopia threatens over ten million. A mentally ill man attacks a San Ysidro, California restaurant killing 21 and injuring 19 others. This year’s 4.3 inflation rate is down from 13.5 percent in 1980. Ronald Reagan wins in a landslide over Walter Mondale.  The new Senate consists of  53 Republicans  and 47 Democrats.  The House has 253 Democrats and 182 Republicans. US GDP per capita in 2009 dollars: $30,817.  Despite all, not nearly as bad as Orwell predicted.

1994: Northridge earthquake. Rwandan Genocide kills up to 1 million. Last Russian troops leave Germany and most of Eastern Europe. US and Russia agree to cooperate to  de-nuclearize Ukraine. NATO intervenes in Yugoslavian Civil War. Aum Shinrikyo launches sarin gas attack on Tokyo subway. Provisional IRA announces complete cessation of military operations.  Iraq threatens Kuwait, US deploys troops to Kuwait, Iraq withdraws military forces from border with Kuwait. Russian troops are ordered into Chechnya to quell insurgency. America Online offers “retail” access to the World Wide Web for the first time.  The elections give Republicans control of both chambers of Congress for the first time since 1954: Senate 53-47, House 230-204 (plus 1). US GDP per capita in 2009 dollars: $37,598.

2004: Madrid train bombing kills 191. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia join NATO. NATO is fighting in Afghanistan. The European Union accepts ten new members: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Malta and Cyprus. Nick Berg is decapitated by a proto-ISIS organization in Iraq, a video of the execution shows Berg in an orange jump-suit. The US-led coalition transfers sovereignty to the Iraqi Interim Government.  Ground-breaking for Freedom Tower (replacing WTC).  Beslan school hostage-taking results in over 300 deaths and 700 serious injuries.  Orange Revolution in Ukraine.  Earthquake and tsunami kills over 180,000 across the eastern Indian Ocean.  George W. Bush defeats John Kerry for President.  The new Congress will consist of 55 Republican Senators and 44 Democrats (plus one other).  The House also has a Republican majority: 232-201.  US GDP per capita in 2009 dollars: $46,967.

You can take/make your own snapshot for 2014.  You know the election results.  Our current GDP per capita is $53,429 ($49,811 in 2009 dollars). This is a week when memories of Birmingham or Selma or the Summer of 64 weirdly echo.

We live in a time of profound and rapid change.  This is only a cliché if we fail to fully recognize its reality.  If we engage the reality, then we will also acknowledge that about the best most of us can do is surf the social-technological-economic tsunami on which we find ourselves.

There are certainly those who — for good cause — fear the water.  There are some who grandly presume to reverse the waves. Others retreat deep into the interior.  I empathize.  I do not crave the clash of currents and soaring crests that threaten to crush me.  But here I am.  With you.

How can I make the best of my circumstance?  How can we, together if possible, enhance our chances of getting safely to shore?  Even have some fun?

I give thanks.  This is, I am told, an attitude and habit that strengthens.  But whether or not this is true, I am authentically thankful.  I have not yet drowned.  The water is invigorating.  The waves are awe-inspiring.  I am constantly challenged to be better: physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually.

I give thanks for prior challenges overcome by others.  I give thanks for the undeniable progress I have seen in a society becoming more diverse, inclusive, wealthier, more knowledgeable, and creative.

I give thanks for seemingly insoluble problems. These have often given me employment.  While the most rigorous waves usually swamp me, on rare occasions after a wild ride they bring me to some sandy shore for rest and recovery.  Occasionally the very worst waves — most fearsome problems — have scooped from the ocean floor or retrieved from a tidal cave priceless treasure.

Very best wishes for your own thanks-giving.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

November 26, 2014

Stafford at twenty-six

Filed under: Congress and HLS,Disaster,Legal Issues,Preparedness and Response — by Philip J. Palin on November 26, 2014

Quin Lucie authored this post. Mr. Lucie is an attorney with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and received his masters degree in Homeland Security Studies from the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval Postgraduate School. The opinions of the author are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security or the Federal Government.

–+–

A Quarter Century More?

Nearly 26 years after it was passed, it’s time to take another look at the Stafford Act.

November 23, 2014 was the 26th anniversary of Public Law 100-707, The Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Amendments of 1988. Probably doesn’t ring a bell does it? But if you’re reading this, you might know the name of the 1974 disaster relief statute it renamed, The Robert T. Stafford Act, or as most just call it, the Stafford Act.

The Stafford Act was the fifth major change to a series of Disaster Relief Acts beginning in 1950 and amended or replaced in 1966, 1969, 1970 and 1974. The Stafford Act itself has seen at least four significant amendments since 1988. However, none of these later changes was done holistically. They were all crafted in a near vacuum of each other.

In 1993 and 1994, partly in response to the abysmal response to Hurricane Andrew, Congress first amended the powers of the Civil Defense Act of 1950 and then completely removed them. Some of the preparedness authorities of the old act found their way into a new title to the Stafford Act. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 added significant mitigation authorities. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA), for the first time, explicitly authorized the activities of FEMA, though those changes appear in the Homeland Security Act, not the Stafford Act. In the Stafford Act, PKEMRA made subtle changes to its response authorities, such as allowing the President to provide assistance, after a declaration, without a specific request from a Governor. The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 made significant reforms to the way public assistance programs are delivered to State, tribal and local governments and made tribal governments eligible to ask for disaster declarations on their own.

The result of these independent, and occasionally improvised changes has been predictable. There are now major parts of the nation’s most important disaster relief authorities that are either forgotten, misunderstood or no longer work as intended. The lack of national dialogue approaches three decades.

Forgotten.

I’m not aware of a single person in FEMA, much less the Federal Government, outside of myself, who has  taken the time to read the legislative history of the Civil Defense Act of 1950, much less understand the factors that led to its demise and reinstatement of part of it in the Stafford Act. Or know why it is the FEMA Administrator, not the President, who was given control over it. There are several parts that could be of significant use to national preparedness efforts, and at least one could provide a very significant source of authority for catastrophic relief efforts. However, these authorities remain outside of the mainstream of planning efforts and the knowledge of emergency managers.

Misunderstood.

“FEMA could develop an updated formula… to determine the capacity of jurisdictions to respond to those disasters.” So stated Mark E Gaffigan, Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in February of this year. What Mr. Gaffigan failed to realize, even though he correctly labeled these formulas as recommendations, was the reasons they have not been updated in decades (Mr. Gaffigan said these fomulas have not been updated since 1986, I’m not sure that is correct – the particular regulation was last updated in January, 1990). Those reasons, which I spelled out in a post on this blog last year, were a direct result of Congress intentionally not wanting to reign in disaster declarations and to keep the criteria broad enough to allowed affected states and jurisdictions to lobby for a declaration.

No longer work as intended.

At that same February hearing, Collin O’Mara, Secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources, spoke at length about how his state was not rewarded for significant pre-storm mitigation efforts it took, while New Jersey was rewarded with billions of dollars of assistance for failing to make similar efforts before Hurricane Sandy. It was clear from the testimony at this hearing that the Stafford Act, at least in parts, is no longer operating as intended.

In some cases, years of experience extracting Federal dollars under the law may have led to the exploitation of inefficiencies that can promote less than optimal mitigation strategies while discouraging more useful resilience policies. It probably now makes more sense for some state and local governments to avoid taking mitigation measures for certain risks, as they will be penalized or at least lack compensation for those measures, and instead wait for a future disaster and then use federal funding at no more than 25 cents on the dollar. In a future Stafford Act, a way needs to be found to reward the efforts of Delaware and Secretary O’Mara while incentivizing the next New Jersey to act before disaster.

These changes can be seen in real time in the States of Illinois and Pennsylvania. Illinois, who experienced several recent events where they did not receive a Federal disaster declaration, has seen legislation introduced in both its own legislature to provide state disaster assistance, and in the U.S. Senate by its two Senators to amend FEMA’s disaster declaration criteria. The proposed state law, last referred to a rules committee in April, is consistent with years of national disaster relief practice, namely that disasters should be handled locally, and then by the States before seeking Federal assistance. On its face, funds available under this law would be available immediately to local governmental bodies without waiting on the Federal government. If this reflects the consensus of the current Congress, it is this type of legislation that would presumably be encouraged and incentivized in a new Stafford Act. On the other hand, the legislation introduced by the two senators is a bit puzzling as it appears to treat FEMA’s regulations for disaster declarations as binding, when in fact they are only recommendations.

In Pennsylvania, there is a similar debate going on. Unlike in Illinois, Pennsylvania would make funds contingent on the fact areas eligible for assistance are not covered by a “Presidential disaster declaration.” This is different than the approach potentially taken by Illinois and could be seen as making Federal funding the primary source of disaster relief, rather than the State (Considering it was Pennsylvania’s own Tom Ridge who was the primary driver of the Stafford Act, it would be interesting for his perspective). Should this statute pass, the State would presumably then make grant assistance under this law unavailable to those in federally declared disaster areas. (After this post was written, a version of this statute was signed into law the last week of October).

Times change.

During the debate over the first disaster relief act in 1950, members of Congress went so far as to ensure its more cynical legislators that under the act there would be “no new agencies or bureaus” authorized under this new law. In fairness it only took around 24 years before a bureau within HUD was solely dedicated to disaster relief and 29 years before the creation of FEMA.

There are two main questions Congress must ask of itself, constituents, and State, tribal and local governments. First, does the Stafford Act currently reflect consensus national priorities for the mitigation, response, and recovery from disasters and the funding of disaster relief? Second, does the Stafford Act, taken as a whole, incentivize the most (politically feasible) efficient strategies for mitigating for, responding to and recovering from disasters? If not, what are the more (most) efficient strategies and can they be adequately prescribed under the current framework of the Stafford Act, or should the Stafford Act be completely restructured?

While not a primary consideration, Congress should also look closely at the relationship between the Stafford Act and the Homeland Security Act. For instance, the primary agency to carry out the Stafford Act, FEMA, has its primary authorities found in the Homeland Security Act. The danger is that such a discussion might quickly bog down over how changes to these two laws might change committee jurisdictions. It might also fuel the underlying friction between “emergency management” and “homeland security” something that is probably continuation of the debate between what is “civil defense” and “all hazards” from decades before.

After six generations of being taken apart, amended and replaced, the Stafford Act, when seen up close, looks more like something found in the laboratory of Dr. Frankenstein, cobbled together from years of compromise and improvised in the wake of major disasters. Maybe it’s time to take another peek under the hood and see everything that has been connected to the engine. It’s only been 26 years.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

November 25, 2014

The world watches

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Christopher Bellavita on November 25, 2014

F australian

Australian f


 

F al jazera


 

F bbc


 

F nigeria


 

F the times


F new zed


F mexico


F itv


F israel


F india


F germany


F france


F china


F canada

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

November 22, 2014

Office of Legal Counsel Analysis

Filed under: Border Security,Immigration,Legal Issues — by Philip J. Palin on November 22, 2014

In an unusual move, the administration has released the analysis of presidential authority undertaken by the Office of Legal Counsel in regard to the role and limits of the President to set priorities in the enforcement of immigration laws. Worth a careful read by all of us… on issues well-beyond immigration.

I will not have time to offer much more any time soon.  Our friends at Lawfare have begun a conversation that should be illuminating.  First up, Paul Rosenzweig on Executive Discretion and Immigration Law.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

November 21, 2014

Friday Free Forum

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on November 21, 2014

As part of my professional triage I will dispense with the natural, accidental and intentional antecedents for each Friday.  Starting next week I will just launch the post.

Bill Cumming — the originator of the Friday Free Forum — has suggested making some regular place for homeland security book reviews.   It seems to me Friday comments would be a good place.  A three sentence introduction, a positive or negative personal judgment, and a link to Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or the publisher would be great.

Over the last ten days I have had several meetings where regular readers of HLSWatch have introduced themselves.  All claimed to value the blog.  Even more impressive, each quoted from memory the principal themes of recent posts by Chris, Arnold or me.

Even for our less-than-mass-market readership, I did not hear from a statistically significant sample.  But I noticed when roughly four out of five also referenced a real regret that conversations were so seldom able to get going.

The whole field of homeland security missed an opportunity when earlier this year an effort here to host a meaningful discussion of the QHSR failed.  People were listening.  We did not advance the conversation.

So as I prepare to recede a bit over the next few weeks, I will offer:

  • Every post benefits from thoughtful questions
  • Every post benefits from real-world stories that confirm or challenge the post
  • Most comments benefit from being read and questioned or challenged or reconfirmed
  • Self-restraint, as in staying on topic and hoping for the good faith of another, is an attractive and constructive habit
  • Conversations unfold when a thought is heard, meaning is confirmed (not yet challenged), alternatives are politely offered, alternatives are heard and confirmed… you know the method.

In my experience real conversation requires real vulnerability.  To further explicate, below is a poem.

The backstory for this poem is relevant.  Last March I facilitated a multi-jurisdictional, private-public homeland security exercise. This was the culminating event for a process that had been underway for over a year. One of the public sector participants was inserted at the last minute. For almost everyone else this was the third (or more) event in a series.  We had already dispensed with a lot of dogma.  She arrived still believing in some federal processes that the private sector had previously persuaded the public sector participants were time-sinking dysfunctions.  I shut her down much too quickly and with a tone that was much too harsh.

Writing this poem was part penitence, part personal AAR.

Words rush forth untethered
Inflating this space between us
Where quiet might have

condensed our difference

Remaining asymmetrical
But also fully tangible
Undeniably actual
A warm body
Liquid eyes

Hearts contracting
Next expanding
Two independent
Yet syncopated rhythms
Rising to the same coda

Words can distance with
Anger disgust or fear
Disinterest irrelevance
Self-involved tedium
Pretentious posturing

Before I say anything
May I hear see touch
Taste feel the reality
Of you, the adventure
Of being here with you

Then may I choose
Words you will hear
As sure evidence
You have been heard

Words that even in
Disagreement
Listen with love

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

November 20, 2014

Mass migrations

Filed under: Border Security,Immigration — by Philip J. Palin on November 20, 2014

Whatever the President says tonight and however the Congress responds, human migration — legal and illegal — will persist. Following is some of the context any effective policy or strategy will need to reflect.

The Global Context

Rapid population growth, rising economic expectations, and improved transportation networks have spurred unprecedented numbers of humans to move from places of economic disadvantage, social turmoil, and political oppression to places of greater wealth, security, and freedom.

Statistical sources are not always counting the same things in the same way. Many of the sources are estimates. And I am new enough at this topic I do not have confidence in my ability to rationalize the different approaches.  Accordingly the following numbers should be seen as suggesting scope and scale, not as a precise accounting.

The United Nations International Migration Report (2013) indicates that there are over 232 million international migrants.  These are citizens of one nation currently residing in another country regardless of status.

Approximately 41 million residents of the United States are foreign-born (13 percent of total population).  Of this total the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics estimates that somewhat more than 11 million are not legally authorized (3.5 percent of total population) to be in the United States.

In 2013 roughly 1 million migrants entered the United States with some sort of authorized status.  The United States is the single largest destination nation for migration, but there are other significant destinations.

The map immediately below reflects comparative migration in-flows.  The second map shows comparative Gross Domestic Product.

International migrationNet inflows of migrants (Worldmapper)

gdp 800x400Gross Domestic Product (Worldmapper)

While the poorest of the poor are not the most typical migrants, perceived vulnerability and/or persistent lack of economic mobility is clearly a major motivation.  In an origin-analysis for unaccompanied minors presenting at the Southern border in the first half of this year, DHS/CBP found a pattern that coincides with poverty and, especially, violence (see map below).

child_migrants_map

Historical Context

In 1875 when construction began on the Statue of Liberty there was no federal legislation restricting immigration.  In 1883 Emma Lazarus wrote these words,

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

Even by then it was a bit more accurate to write, “Let me choose among your tired…”  The Page Act of 1875 was aimed mostly at curtailing Asian migration to the United States. This was followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.   The Immigration Acts of 1903 and 1907 excluded several classes of potential immigrants such as anarchists, lepers, epileptics, and those with a variety of psychological disorders. The Immigration Act of 1924 established quotas for some nations of origin. Mexican immigration was restricted for the first time in 1965.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 emerged from a set of political, economic, and ethical issues rather similar to the situation today.

Regular readers may be annoyed — but you are not surprised —  that I perceive a classical analogy.

Fundamental to Roman imperial policy was assimilation of “barbarians” (either conquered or immigrants).  This was especially true in the Fourth Century as several Germanic tribes pressed hard by Hunnish invasions and migration piled up against and over Roman borderlands. Gibbon seems to argue the Goths were too different and too numerous to assimilate.  So there is a traditional narrative that Rome fell to especially aggressive “immigrants.”  Some contemporary scholars disagree.  Alessandro Barbero and others point to the decision of the Emperor Valens in 378 to fight rather than make common cause with the Goths as a fundamental error. The Battle of Adrianople reversed several centuries of a culturally inclusive strategy and committed the Empire to an unsustainable effort to exclude. The city of Rome was sacked in 410.

Historians can argue what really happened then.  We are making similar choices now. As with Valens and the Goths, it is sufficiently complicated that even historians may be unable to agree on the implications of what we do or fail to do.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

Ebola — no sitrep — but an update

Filed under: Biosecurity,Preparedness and Response,Public Health & Medical Care — by Philip J. Palin on November 20, 2014

One Wednesday the World Health Organization released a new update on the situation in West Africa.  The rate of new transmissions has continued to decline in Liberia and Guinea.  But the curve is continuing upward in Sierra Leone.

I have not seen a persuasive analysis to explain the difference between the three neighboring nations.  But there is some indication that too many social-networks in Sierra Leona may still be in denial.  Community engagement and organization are widely thought to be what turned-the-curve in Liberia.

On Tuesday a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on fighting Ebola in West Africa.   You can see/hear a video of the hearing and read the prepared testimony at the committee’s website.

I probably will not prepare a new sitrep this weekend as I have the last few weekends.  A couple of new “day job” assignments are going to take a serious commitment through mid-February.  I may be a bit AWOL from HLSWatch.  We’ll see.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn
« Previous PageNext Page »