Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

November 16, 2011

Who Do You Serve, Who Do You Protect

Filed under: State and Local HLS — by Mark Chubb on November 16, 2011

Many police departments have adopted some version of the somewhat standard or all-purpose police motto: “To serve and protect.” Last night, as NYPD officers, some in riot gear, cleared protestors from Zuccotti Park, some bystanders could be heard chanting, “Who Do You Serve! Who Do You Protect!” These are questions worth asking.

A few weeks ago, when I followed Chris Bellavita’s lead and began considering what the Occupy protests might portend for public safety and homeland security, I questioned what we could count on police officers and firefighters to do in the face of mounting public unrest and pressure to restore the status quo ante. My question was predicated on two observations: 1) Many cops and firefighters feel just as alienated and fearful in the current economic climate as many of the protestors do and 2) cops and firefighters, despite their relatively favored standing in public opinion have garned little public support as they have confronted job cuts, threats to collective bargaining rights and the looming prospects pension reform and benefit reductions.

Over the past few days, my questions have been answered. Cops and firefighters in city after city have seen fit to faithfully follow instructions and act against protestors, often upon the slimmest pretexts. Take for instance the characterization of Zuccotti Park and other Occupy encampments as threats to health and safety. In several instances, this was predicated at least in part on the operation of gasoline generators to produce electric power. The exhaust fumes were deemed hazardous sources of the toxic combustion gas carbon monoxide. The hot exhausts and fuel cans were also considered fire hazards. The close quarters in which these operations were conducted was said to compound these risks.

Now let’s consider what usually happens when fire inspectors find such conditions: Essentially nothing. You see, the model fire prevention codes adopted in nearly very city and state in the country, including post-9/11 New York City, do not address these hazards directly in such an environment. They simply do not envision such circumstances or call them out as dangerous. As such, the fire inspectors had to conclude based on the “professional judgment and opinion” that these conditions constituted a danger to life per se.

I’ve spent nearly all of my professional career crafting, interpreting or applying these codes, and I can say with complete confidence that this opinion is both baseless and unwarranted. That is unless you consider the intense political pressure fire officials must have been under to give the mayor and police commissioner the requisite pretext for acting against the occupation.

It saddens me to say this, by I find such behavior sorry and shameful. I reach this conclusion in substantial part because such action is so unprecedented even when it is clearly warranted. A case in point: No action was taken to suspend operations or seize private property in the Deutsche Bank Building when inspectors became aware of dangerous conditions during its demolition following the 9/11 attacks. Two firefighters sent to combat a fire there in August 2007 died, and 46 more suffered serious, career-ending injuries because of confusing and obstructed exit paths, failure to maintain firefighting features, and the use of high flame-spread materials and uncontrolled heat sources during asbestos removal operations. These conditions conspired to allow an otherwise minor fire started by discarded smoking materials  to spread through 10 floors before it was controlled.

In the aftermath of this fire, two very telling truths emerged. First, despite permit conditions that required inspections at least once every 15 days, city authorities had failed to conduct any recorded inspections of the demolition operation between March 2007 and the date the fire occurred.  Second, the city enabled if not facilitated the contractor’s malfeasance by taking a laissez faire approach to overseeing demolition operations despite repeated warnings a disaster could result. (I use the term “malfeasance” advisedly: The demolition contractor- employed by the Lower Manhattan Development Authority–the ironically named John Galt Corporation–was found guilty of reckless endangerment in 2009, although construction supervisors employed by the company were acquitted of involuntary manslaughter charges.)

If inspectors can so willingly look away in the face of clearly dangerous conditions like those present at Deutsche Bank, what makes them so eager to see fire hazards in Zuccotti Park when no such violations exist in fire codes? Is it possible they fear the fate of so many others who are now unemployed if they fail to accede to their superiors’ expectations?

I am reluctant to answer these questions, but I don’t mind asking them of those who made these decisions. In the end, the questions in play here are the same timeless ones we all face when values and principles collide: Who or what do you serve? Who or what are you protecting?

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

November 15, 2011

Shooting little girls for fun

Filed under: Technology for HLS — by Christopher Bellavita on November 15, 2011

She looked maybe 8 or 9 years old.  Her brown hair reached her shoulders.  She wore a frilly blue dress and a white pinafore.  She looked like John Tenniel’s Alice in Wonderland, on her way to a tea party.

But she wasn’t in Wonderland.

A man in his thirties jumped out from behind a twisted thick rubber pole and with no warning fired three shot’s at Alice’s small chest.

“Good hit!” praised the mechanical voice from the man’s shoulder pads.

The man moved on to find his next victim.  Alice looked uncertain, not sure what to do next.

Welcome to laser tag.


Last Saturday a friend and his fifth grade son invited me and my fifth grader to have pizza and play laser tag at a local entertainment center.  I’d heard the words “laser tag” before but I hadn’t paid much attention to what they signified.  If I thought of it at all, I would have thought tag is tag.  No biggie.

I was not socialized in a gun culture so I default to a mild “that’s a bit weird” internal reaction when I hear about people and their affinity for shooting guns.  I respect, however, that people who grew up with guns have a different response than I do.  Some of my best friends, as the old saying goes, have dozens of guns.

I live in a rural part of western Oregon, and guns have a different meaning to people here than they do to people in urban areas. At least I think so.  In my part of the rural west, firing guns is a hobby. I believe in cities some people still call the police when they hear gunshots.

While we were eating pizza, my friend explained what laser tag involved. That’s when I realized we would be shooting people.

All the “players” would receive a gun and a vest.  The gun fired a beam of light called, for game purposes, a laser.  The vest was the target. Hit someone’s vest and you’d hear “Good hit!” from shoulder speakers. Get hit, and you’d hear small explosion sounds.

There’s a little more to laser tag, but that’s basically it.  Oh, and ear draining overdrive guitar music fills the room during the laser battles.


Before the game started, 31 players – men, women, boys, girls brought together by randomness – selected code names.  No point telling people who you really are.

Then we went into the briefing room to learn the rules of engagement: no running, no cursing, no physical contact with another player, and some other rules I do not remember.

“No running,” emphasized our briefer.  “I won’t say it again, but any running and out you go.”

Next an unseen master computer divided us into the Red Team and the Blue Team.  Then we each received a gun and vest.

The object of the game was to score as many points as possible by shooting the enemy and blasting the enemy’s base camp. The team with the most points wins.

“Any questions?” asked our briefer?

Hearing none, the digital guitars started blaring, and the battles began.


Social identity theory hypothesizes that — as a largely unreflective part of normal cognition — we tend to divide various parts of our world into “them” vs. “us”: Yankee fans vs. Red Sox fans, liberals vs. conservatives, democrats vs. republicans, feds vs. locals, middle class vs. working class, the 99% vs. the 1%, Hutus vs. Tutsis, Bosnians vs. Serbs, Israelis vs. Palestinians, Christians vs. Muslims.

Social identity is created by putting people into categories (the red team vs. blue team in laser tag), adopting the identity of one’s group (red team wears the red vests, blue team has the blue equipment), and then comparing one’s group with the “other.”

The in-group (that would be “us”) is superior in important ways to the out-group (“them”).  Those in the in-group seek — and easily find — the negative aspects of the out-group, and by doing that, further build their superiority.


About halfway thorough the first laser tag battle, Alice came around a corner near my position.  Without thinking, I pointed my “gun” toward the ground.  Like me, Alice was on the Red Team.  She was one of us.

A few seconds later, I saw Alice get shot by the Blue Team man.

“How could you shoot a little girl?” I immediately asked him in my imagination. “Are you really that slimy?”

Suddenly the game got serious.  I started hunting Blue Team.

I was surprised how quickly and automatically I adopted a shared social identity with 15 strangers, and how easy it was to consider 15 other strangers as the “them” who needed to be “tagged” with my laser gun.

Unlike the laser tag fantasy, us vs. them became reality.


“Perhaps it’s impossible to wear an identity without becoming what you pretend to be,” says one of the characters in a book I’d read years ago, called “Ender’s Game.”

In the novel, the government trains a new generation to defend Earth from attack. Ender, the hero, is sent to a military training facility. He believes he is playing training games. Unknowingly and unwittingly he is actually fighting and destroying Earth’s enemy.  If I recall correctly, the enemy is a race of insects.

Unlike laser tag, Ender’s Game is fiction


I have another friend who lives in a south western state. He is a gentle man devoted to protecting the nation. I haven’t talked with him for a while.  I remember one of our last conversations. He told me what a normal day was like for him:

“I’m up by 6 and get ready for work.  My wife and two daughters get up around 7 and get ready for school.  I kiss them goodbye and go to the office.  I fly a couple of missions, and on a good day I’m home by 4 or 5. The family has dinner together.  We do homework; maybe watch a little television. I usually read my girls a bedtime story or two before they go to sleep. I’m in bed by 10, ready to do it all again tomorrow.”

My friend flies drones — unmanned aerial vehicles — for one of the military services.  The drone takes off from one country.  He controls it from this country. It kills people in a third country.

Unlike laser tag, the drone attack is real.


Phil Palin posted Pratap Chatterjee’s story last week about how 16 year old Tariq Aziz and his 12 year old cousin Waheed Khanwas were killed, apparently by a Hellfire missile launched by a drone.

Ethicists have spoken and written about the morality of drone warfare that cannot distinguish with precision combatants and innocents living among “the other.”   Scholars have described the expanding moral pitfalls created by technologies that promise precision, security, and user anonymity.

But technology does not wait for debates to be resolved.

The Air Force is developing drones that look to the naked eye like small birds. The Navy is planning to add refuelling capabilities to its X-47B drone, intended to be the first drone to take off and land from an aircraft carrier.  The Navy is also studying what fish can teach us about creating more effective drones.

In a moderately disturbing precursor to Ender’s Game, DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) is exploring the use of insect as weapons.  Mary Shelley anyone?

That’s the world of homeland defense.  What about homeland security?


DHS presently has seven drones, used primarily to monitor the US borders.  According to Danger Room’s Katie Drummond, however, the DHS drone program is running into budget problems.

“Officials acknowledge that [DHS is] short on pilots and maintenance — right now, they can only pay to fly the drones five days a week.”

Drummond’s story notes that Congress appropriated 32 million dollars this summer to buy 3 additional Predator drones for DHS, drones no one at DHS asked for.  According to Drummond,

The appropriation was the result of ongoing lobbying from the so-called “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Caucus,” a group of several dozen congressmen, many of whom hail from Southern California — a hot-bed of drone development and home to General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the company that makes the Predator drone in question.

“This is a symptom of how surveillance technology is spreading around the U.S.,” Jay Stanley, a senior privacy and technology analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, said [in the story]. “A lot of times it is not being pulled by people on the ground. It is being pushed from above by people who want to sell it.”


A recent military test demonstrated that maybe drones don’t need people to be effective.  They can locate targets without human “interference.”  The test suggests a future time “when drones hunt, identify and kill the enemy based on calculations made by software, not decisions made by humans.”

The tests were preliminary.  I don’t know how fast this particular technology will develop, but as machines get “smarter” in the sense that word is used in the technium, I hope smart does not include a cognition that considers machines the in-group, and humans as dangerous as a little girl in a party dress, carrying a gun.

If it’s anything like laser tag, the insight can happen very quickly.



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

November 11, 2011

The jury is still out on Veterans Day

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Christopher Bellavita on November 11, 2011

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

Edmund Burke gets credit for those words, but there’s no proof he’s the author.  Nonetheless, I think he would have agreed with the sentiment.

Burke supported the American revolutionaries.

“Reflect,” he wrote in 1774, “how you are to govern a people who think they ought to be free and think they are not.”

He could have been writing about governance in these days of Occupiers and Tea Partiers.

Burke helped create modern conservatism. He was also a classical liberal.  He lived in the days when conservative and liberal meant something more than a mindless curse or a cloak of ignorance.


I first saw the “good men do nothing” quote taped on the wall of a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent I worked with.  He lived those words.

I thought about the quote watching the turmoil unwrap at Penn State this week.

Penn State is my undergraduate alma mater. Students rioted the other night apparently because the university trustees and the media forced a football coach to resign because he did not do more to report a man accused of raping a boy.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

The quote echoed again watching University of California police break up an Occupy protest that apparently involved students violating rules about putting tents on the Berkeley campus.

Berkeley is my graduate alma mater.  Was it the police or the demonstrators responding to the imperative that good men — and women — must do something in the face of evil?

Alma mater means “nourishing mother.”  What a deceptive marketing shroud for a 21st century corporate education enterprise.


I thought about the quote on my way to jury duty earlier this week.  I was trying to remember which amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury.  I thought it was the 5th.

Wrong.  It’s the 6th amendment.

Since I had the Constitution open I kept reading and realized — to my untutored surprise — five of the first ten amendments have to do with the judicial and trial process: 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th.

The Declaration of Independence is included with the copy of the Constitution I have.  Although I have read it often, I guess I glossed over one of the colonists’ complaints: The King of Great Britain has deprived “us, in many cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury.”

Trial by jury is a big deal in the security of our homeland.


I took my place in a room along with 129 other people who had been called to serve that day on a jury.  Most of the people seemed nervous, out of place.  It’s not normal for us to be on a jury.  Most of the people were white, male and somewhat past their mid-40s. The women too were mostly white; a few were young enough to need an excuse slip to give their teachers as a justification for missing class.  I saw one Asian woman.

The conversations I heard were a variation of “too bad for us we couldn’t get out of jury duty.”  As if receiving the jury notice was like getting a tax audit, or a draft notice, or a DUI.

“They took a look at me last time,” said one guy with two 00 ear gauges, each as big as a Susan B. Anthony dollar coin, “and let me go.”

“I was called 6 months ago,” said another man. “I think they can only make you do this once every two years.”

“Do you think we’re going to be here all day?” a woman asked to no one in particular.

“Yeah, I’m stuck with jury duty,” said another guy into his cell phone, a little louder than he should have.


At 9:30 the jury coordinator — I think that’s what her title was — stood in front of a microphone and with her pleasant, easygoing voice welcomed everyone to the jury staging room.

She said the words “jury service is important.”  But her side comments, her ad hoc remarks, were all about “I know it’s inconvenient,” and “sorry it was your turn,” and “hey; it’s not going to be too painful,” and “it’ll be over soon.”

She explained there were two trials today.  Each trial needed a 6-person jury, and to get that number in a fair way they needed a 60-person pool. The rest of the people would be able to go home and that would be the end of their obligation for the next two years.

“I already let one man go today,” she said, as if jury service was about catch and release.  “He was on a jury a few months ago and he does not need to serve again for 18 more months.”

Her tone — not her words – said the man had won a prize, and you might too.

“I’ll be playing you a short video,” she went on, “that describes what you can expect today.”

She changed the channels on the two TVs that had been showing Regis Philbin’s apparently final week on television, and pressed play on what I think was a VCR.

For the next 15 minutes, I watched one of the best orientation videos I’d seen about anything government does.  You can watch the video here and judge for yourself.

I found the video to be informative, serious, and significant.  It did an outstanding job describing what would happen that day, and why jury service was an important part of being an American — maybe even more important than voting.

My words, not the video’s, but the video portrayed jury service as the Constitutional mechanism good men and women use to help make sure evil does not triumph.  I thought of it as the We The People part of homeland security.

Then we had a 20-minute break while we waited to get called.


“I had to work really hard not to bust up laughing at that video,” said my new friend with the 00 earrings.

“If I don’t say anything to him,” I thought, “am I helping evil triumph, or would I just be wasting my breath?”

I didn’t know the guy, but my gut told me he did not really believe what he was saying.  I figured he was trying to fit in with this crowd of still mostly nervous strangers by saying what he thought was expected, like being in Boston and pretending to be a Red Sox fan.

I kept my mouth shut.

When we came back from the break, the jury coordinator said, “I’ve heard from the judges.  A few minutes ago, the people in one of the two cases decided to settle out of court, so we are only going to need 30 people. We’ll pick the 30 of you at random. I will call your juror number in a moment.  If you are not called, then bye bye.  You’re done for the day.  And you’re done for the next two years.”

The odds of being on a jury had just plunged.  I wondered how many people thought, “Damn!”

“When I call your number,” said the coordinator, “come up here and take your paper work.  Then sit down until we release the others.”

She called thirty numbers.  Mostly men — including the ear ring guy — and a few women.  They walked to the front of the room, picked up their papers, and sat back down.  They did not look happy or disappointed.  Resigned may be a better word.  I couldn’t really tell.  I was trying to summon all the mystical power I possessed to have my number called, all the while knowing that using mystical powers for something this worldly automatically neutralizes — if not reverses — magic.

I was right.  And disappointed.  My number was not called.

“And to the rest of you, bye bye” said the coordinator again.  “And,” she ad libbed with a smile in her voice, “please don’t gloat over the others as you leave.”


On this date 93 years ago, World War I came to an end.  116,516 members of the U.S. armed forces died in that war.

405,399 died during World War II.

36,516 died in the Korean War.

58,151 died in the Vietnam War.

6,280 – and counting – died in the Terrorism Wars.

622,862 members of the military died in the 35,000 days between World War I and today.

That’s an average of 18 people a day, every day, for 93 years.


History is too messy to make many unambiguous claims. But I want to think these good men and these good women gave their lives to prevent the triumph of evil.

For this Veterans Day — as the good men and women in the Tea Party and the Occupy, and the mainstream, and its tributaries, and the police, and the candidates for office, and the people they want to replace, and the people called to service on a jury and elsewhere work, with mindfulness, to prevent the triumph of evil — it is what I wish to hope.





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

November 9, 2011

This Is Only a Test

Filed under: Events,Technology for HLS — by Mark Chubb on November 9, 2011

Today at 2:00 pm EST/11:00 am PST the first nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System was conducted. Many wonder why it took this day so long to come, but I suspect most who experienced it wonder whether it did any good.

These days, EAS like its predecessor, the Emergency Broadcast System, seems more like a relic of our Cold War past than an essential element of a resilient national telecommunications infrastructure designed to keep people informed. With so many people receiving information on demand through smartphones, tablet computers, their desktop machines, and other “screens,” it’s worth wondering how many people missed the test entirely and remain as blissfully unaware of the system’s efficacy as they were yesterday.

Plans to conduct today’s test have been in development for months (many more months, that is, than we have in a year or maybe even several years). As the date approached, many broadcasters complained the date was coming too quickly. In the end, when it came, the test did little to prove that the technical investments made in recent years to upgrade the system to the latest digital technology and make it compatible with the Common Alerting Protocol will pay dividends, since many participating broadcasters have still not fulfilled the FCC mandate to make changes to their equipment.

I am sure that many of those who did hear today’s test thought it was the same one they hear every week or every month and paid little attention. These local and regional tests, although mandatory for most broadcasters, have never ensured that the system will perform one of its primary functions in the event of a major disaster or national emergency. This test remedies only part of that problem.

Broadcasters are under no obligation to carry most local and regional messages. Beyond installing and testing EAS equipment, participation — with the exception of relaying messages from the national command authority — is essentially voluntary. As such, today’s test really was the first practical test to see whether these investments might really pay-off.

Broadcasters and cable companies have 45 days to report results of the test. Early returns suggest mixed results. That said, it is not too early to ask, what next?

Efforts to rollout a next-generation Commercial Mobile Alert System via wireless (cellular telephone) carriers is already well underway. At least one service provider, it seems, has leaked test messages into the wild. Does this suggest the EAS test is too little and too late?

As citizens become more comfortable exchanging information via smartphones equipped with SMS, MMS, social media, streaming video, and GPS technology, the capacity of public safety and homeland security agencies to both transmit and receive important messages by means other than voice is increasingly outmoded as well as outdated. Investments to catch-up will likely run into the billions of dollars.

Public expectations already exceed public safety communications capabilities, especially when it comes to 911 and public warning and notifications systems. In the current fiscal and political environment, we should be asking not what we need to do about this situation, but how we will get the needed work done.

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

November 8, 2011

Sheep in wolf clothing? Wolf in sheep clothing? What training does the shepherd give the sheepdog?

Filed under: Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on November 8, 2011

The following is copied in its entirety from the November 7 online edition of  The Guardian (UK).  The author Pratap Chatterjee is an investigative journalist, author and a senior fellow at the Centre for American Progress, based in Washington, DC.  A British citizen, Chatterjee is a long-time resident of California.  At the Guardian link is a photograph of Tariq Aziz shortly before he was killed.  At the time I posted the essay there were over 170 public comments.


Last Friday, I met a boy, just before he was assassinated by the CIATariq Aziz was 16, a quiet young man from North Waziristan, who, like most teenagers, enjoyed soccer. Seventy-two hours later, a Hellfire missile is believed to have killed him as he was travelling in a car to meet his aunt in Miran Shah, to take her home after her wedding. Killed with him was his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan.

Over 2,300 people in Pakistan have been killed by such missiles carried by drone aircraft such as the Predator and the Reaper, and launched by remote control from Langley, Virginia. Tariq and Waheed brought the known total of children killed in this way to 175, according to statistics maintained by the organisation I work for, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The final order to kill is signed allegedly by Stephen Preston, the general counsel at the CIA headquarters. What evidence, I would like to know, does Mr Preston have against Tariq and Waheed? What right does he have to act as judge, jury and executioner of two teenage boys neither he nor his staff have ever met, let alone cross-examined, or given the opportunity to present witnesses?

It is not too late to call for a prosecution and trial of whoever pushed the button and the US government officials who gave the order: that is, Mr Preston and his boss, President Barack Obama.

There are many people whom I know who can appear as witnesses in this trial. We – a pair of reporters, together with several lawyers from Britain, Pakistan and the US – met the victim and dozens of other young men from North Waziristan for dinner at the Margalla hotel in Islamabad on Thursday 27 October. We talked about their local soccer teams, which they proudly related were named for Brazil, New Zealand and other nations, which they had heard about but never visited.

The next morning, I filmed young Tariq walking into a conference hall to greet his elders. I reviewed the tape after he was killed to see what was recorded of some of his last moments: he walks shyly and greets the Waziri elders in the traditional style by briefly touching their chests. With his friends, he walks to a set of chairs towards the back of the hall, and they argue briefly about where each of them will sit. Over the course of the morning, Tariq appears again in many photographs that dozens of those present took, always sitting quietly and listening intently.

Tariq was attending a “Waziristan Grand Jirga” on behalf of drone strike victims in Pakistan, which was held at the Margalla hotel the following day. As is the Pashtun custom, the young men, each of whom had lost a friend or relative in a drone strike, did not speak. For four hours, the Waziri elders debated the drone war, and then they listened to a resolution condemning the attacks, read out by Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a lawyer from the Foundation for Fundamental Rights. The group voted for this unanimously.

Neil Williams, a volunteer from Reprieve, the British legal charity, sat down and chatted with Tariq after the jirga was over. Together, they traveled in a van to the Pakistani parliament for a protest rally against drone strikes led by Imran Khan, a former cricketer, and now the leader of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf political party.

The next day, the group returned home to Waziristan. On Monday, Tariq was killed, according to his uncle Noor Kalam.

The question I would pose to the jury is this: would a terrorist suspect come to a public meeting and converse openly with foreign lawyers and reporters, and allow himself to be photographed and interviewed? More importantly, since he was so easily available, why could Tariq not have been detained in Islamabad, when we spent 48 hours together? Neither Tariz Aziz nor the lawyers attending this meeting had a highly trained private security detail that could have put up resistance.

Attending that jirga, however, were Clive Stafford Smith and Tara Murray, two US lawyers who trained at Columbia and Harvard. They tell me, unequivocally, that US law is based on the fact that every person is innocent until proven guilty. Why was Tariq, even if a terrorist suspect, not offered an opportunity to defend himself?

Let me offer an important alternative argument – the US government has a record of making terrible mistakes in this covert war. On 2 September 2010, the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan claimed to have killed Muhammad Amin, the alleged Taliban deputy governor of Takhar province in Afghanistan, in a drone strike. There was only one problem: Michael Semple, a Taliban expert at Harvard University, subsequently interviewed Muhammad Amin and confirmed that he was alive and well and living in Pakistan in March 2011.

The man who was killed was Zabet Amanullah, who was out campaigning in parliamentary elections – along with nine of his fellow election workers.This was confirmed by exhaustive research conducted by Kate Clark, a former BBC correspondent in Kabul who now works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network, who had met with Zabet Amanullah in 2008. The error could have been avoided, Clark points out in her report, if US militaryintelligence officers had just been “watching election coverage on television”, instead of living in its “parallel world” remote from “normal, everyday world of Afghan politics”.

If Barack Obama’s CIA believed in justice and judicial process, they could have attended the Islamabad jirga last Friday and met with Tariq. It was, after all, an open meeting. They could have arrested and charged Tariq with the help of the Pakistani police. If a prosecution is ever mounted over the death of Tariq, those of us who met him on several occasions last week would be happy to testify to the character of the young man that we had met. But if the CIA has evidence to the contrary, it should present it to the world.

Unless the CIA can prove that Tariq Aziz posed an imminent threat (as the White House’s legal advice stipulates a targeted killing must in order for an attack to be carried out), or that he was a key planner in a war against the US or Pakistan, the killing of this 16 year old was murder, and any jury should convict the CIA accordingly.

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

November 7, 2011

The gathering Iranian nuclear storm

Filed under: Radiological & Nuclear Threats — by Arnold Bogis on November 7, 2011

This week the IAEA is expected to release a new report on Iran’s past work in developing nuclear warheads:

A Western diplomat who has seen drafts of the report said it will elaborate on secret intelligence collected since 2004 showing Iranian scientists struggling to overcome technical hurdles in designing and building nuclear warheads. The scientists’ studies include computer modeling of warhead design and field-testing the kinds of high-precision conventional explosives used to trigger a nuclear chain-reaction, said the diplomat, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the board’s internal deliberations. Some of the work continued after 2003, when Iran is believed to have halted its nuclear weapons research in response to international and domestic pressures, the official said.

There will be a lot of noise concerning this report, with calls for military action and concern expressed for the safety of our allies in the region.  The threat to the U.S. will likely be expressed through the scenario in which Iranian officials “hand off” a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah terrorists to be used against the homeland.

Putting aside questions of preemption and deterrence of nuclear armed states, I would like to list just a few points salient for homeland security:

  • The difficulty faced by Iran in producing nuclear weapons (assuming that or a virtual arsenal is their goal) should not be taken as evidence that it is a task too difficult for terrorists.  The nuclear aspirations of a state differ greatly from that of potential nuclear terrorists: a state desires an arsenal and not simply one (or, if they’re lucky, more) weapons; a state requires the ability to secure fissile material for multiple bombs, including the capability for enrichment or reprocessing, while this technology would be beyond the reach of non-state groups; a state’s weapon design would have to be generally of predictable yield and operate within particular design constraints, while a terrorist weapon would just have to have a good chance of working or even producing a fizzle to achieve much of the desired effect; and a state would want to fashion a small warhead deliverable by rudimentary ballistic missile or small aircraft, while terrorists could do with an  improvised device weighing a ton or more.


  • If Iran does develop a nuclear weapons capability, that does not automatically mean that Hezbollah or Hamas would have access.  A rudimentary nuclear arsenal would be highly valuable to a new nuclear state and it is considered unlikely that such prized “crown jewels” would be turned over to unreliable actors for deployment in situations not directly controlled by that state.  Instead, the greater danger in the connection between proliferation and nuclear terrorism is that the increased amount of bombs or simply fissile materials increases the potential for sympathetic insiders to facilitate transfer to wanna-be nuclear terrorists.  In other words, it is more likely that officials below those in charge of the nuclear weapon programs in Iran (or Pakistan) might be moved to share their access with terrorists against the wishes of their superiors and national leaders.

It is important to keep some perspective…nuclear terrorism remains a threat and a nuclear-armed Iran would be a very negative outcome for our national security, but this week’s news should not be taken as a sign that the sky is about to fall.

Update: As soon as I schedule this post, Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick publishes additional detail on what is contained in the IAEA report:

Intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.

Documents and other records provide new details on the role played by a former Soviet weapons scientist who allegedly tutored Iranians over several years on building high-precision detonators of the kind used to trigger a nuclear chain reaction, the officials and experts said. Crucial technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea also helped propel Iran to the threshold of nuclear capability, they added.

Interesting details, and I’m sure the actual report will contain even more, however nothing that yet radically changes the overall threat picture. While the names and other specifics were not previously public, this reporting seems to reinforce already existing perceptions about the nature of Iran’s nuclear work.  More worrisome would be Iran’s recent moves to shift its nuclear facilities to locations underground and the installation of advanced centrifuge equipment.

Update 2: The IAEA report can be found here: http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf


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

November 4, 2011

Tic toc, tic toc, time’s a-wasting, where’s your BOC?

Filed under: Preparedness and Response,Private Sector,State and Local HLS — by Philip J. Palin on November 4, 2011

In a soon-to-be-published paper a multinational academic team that was in Japan at the time of the earthquake-and-tsunami credits “a handful of trucking/distribution companies” for saving thousands of lives.  ”Without their timely intervention, the situation in Tohoku would have taken the path of Haiti, where the lack of help from the local business class contributed to a crisis of huge proportions.”

Pause over this finding for just a moment: Without action by five or six key players in the supply chain, a major swath of the third largest economy in the world would have “taken the path of Haiti.”

The academic specialists in transportation, urban management, and civil engineering conclude the Japanese firms took the initiative because they “were in a position to know that the private sector supply chains had been severely disrupted, and that that the public sector was not ready to fill the gap.” (my italics)

Based on my own observations, in the first week after the earthquake-and-tsunami the Japanese government was not fully aware of its incapacity to fill the gap.  During the first five to six days, the government’s perimeter control was actually suppressing supply chain resilience.  A first step in restoring essential services to survivors was persuading the government they were incapable of doing so and to get out of the way.

This week Tesco,  the British — but international — grocery opened a new distribution center in Bangkok supplementing two existing DCs that have been impacted by the massive and ongoing floods.  This new site will focus on necessities such as water, instant noodles, and canned fish, importing these and other commodities from Malaysia, Vietnam, China, and elsewhere.   Since the flooding began Tesco has increased its distribution capacity in Thailand by about 40 percent.

Friends in Thailand complain the government’s response to the epic flooding has been totally incompetent.  A Bangkok expat who happened to be Japan during the earthquake-and-tsunami adds, “But the incompetence is so complete the government at least does not get in the way.”

Last week I was in a meeting with a senior officer of a major US food distribution company.   He shared one story after another from the Northridge earthquake, to wildfires in Southern California, to Katrina and more where grocery wholesalers and retailers were ready with product and transport, but were kept away… just as in Japan.

A factoid: the tonnage of food shipped into the typical US metropolitan census area each week exceeds what the US military shipped into Afghanistan during the first year of the war.  The US military’s effort is considered a marvel of modern logistics.  But even the US military does not have the logistics capability to fill the food, pharma, and other essential needs of a major urban area in case of a catastrophe.

Recognizing the challenge there are increasing efforts to facilitate private-public collaboration in advance of a catastrophe.  The FEMA Private Sector Office is hosting meetings, brokering relationships and pushing each state to establish effective public-private partnerships.  So far twenty-two states are in the process of doing so.

Over the last few years several cities (such as Los Angeles)  regions (such as the Bay Area) or states (such as New Jersey) have established Business Operations Centers (BOCs) or Business Emergency Operations Centers (BEOCs) or even Virtual Business Operations Center (VBOCs) to facilitate collaboration during emergencies, disasters, and catastrophes.

In some places a BOC is little more than some business seats in the government’s  Emergency Operations Center.  Several BOCs involve exchanging information and  facilitating resource management. Only a few seem to include common risk assessments, joint training and private-public exercises.

Yesterday (and continuing today) I am at a national conference focusing on the private-public interface in emergencies and establishing BOCs.  Some fly-on-the-wall impressions:

  • Lots of good will all around, reflecting a very practical sense of private-public mutual dependence.
  • Everyone recognizes that personal trust-building is essential and — given American mobility — not entirely sufficient.
  • The common value proposition seems to be information sharing for situational awareness and, if possible, situational analysis.
  • Lots of different technological approaches to achieving information sharing, situational awareness, and more.  Reminds me of the online learning market before BlackBoard emerged as the dominant player.  At some point there will be — needs to be — convergence.
  • Most innovative, forward-leaning solutions seem to involve some sort of mediator between public and private sectors, such as an educational institution or a not-for-profit operating as host, active party, or actual entity.  This seems to defuse a variety of legal, political, and perhaps command-and-control issues.
  • There is an implicit expectation by the public sector involved that when push comes to shove they are in charge.  This is unchallenged by private sector because they know when push comes to shove they will do (or not do) what seems best to them at the time.

In many respects it is amazing this kind of explicit and sustained private-public collaboration is such a recent phenomenon.

A leader of one the BOC’s reported that in his major city the private sector has welcomed the invitation to be involved and quickly taken the initiative to be more involved.

“They seem to think disasters are recurring faster and faster and getting bigger and bad-er.  They are trying to get ahead of the wave,” he explained.

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

November 2, 2011

Standards of Service

Filed under: Organizational Issues — by Mark Chubb on November 2, 2011

Last week, I attended the Northeast Conference on Public Administration. The conference focused on efforts to build trust and confidence in public service. In principle, I have nothing against trust and confidence, but as last week’s post probably made clear, I think these feelings only get you so far.

Several theorists suggest that trust and confidence is an important prerequisite of democracy legitimacy. But practitioners know the absence of trust is often a prime mover among the disaffected who show up at public meetings to influence officials. It should come as no surprise then that the more involved someone is in the political and administrative processes of government, the more likely they are to have trust and confidence in the outcome of public processes and those who make them.

Most of the distrust in government and public officials stems from the sense that these individuals and institutions are increasingly removed from the experiences of those they serve and the effects of the decisions they make. Firefighters, teachers, nurses, and cops often enjoy public approval ratings far higher than politicians because they have intimate contact with people, and those with whom they come into contact have little or no understanding of what they actually do or how they do it. As such, routine exposure to the good works of public officials does not necessarily translate into public support much less political power.

This begs the question then, what is public trust and confidence good for and how can public officials, especially homeland security practitioners, build it and use it to achieve important public purposes? For starters, we should recognize that what people say they want and what these desires mean often requires clarification.

I work in the fire service, where people often express their expectations of us as follows:

Speedget there quickly.

Relevancedo the right thing.

Accuracydo things right.

I imagine that these same expectations apply to many other aspects of the homeland security enterprise. Who wouldn’t like to get through passenger screening at the airport quickly, while knowing that the screening procedures were both the minimum necessary as well as sufficient to prevent any acts of terrorism from occurring?

When questions or controversies arise surrounding our service, however, it become clearer that people understand that these expectations come at a cost, and their desire for each is more or less elastic depending upon their situation and the circumstances attending their need for service. Over the years, it has become clearer to me that people assess our performance and detect deviations from their expectations a little differently than they usually express them:

Speed –> consistency, dependabilityshowing up at all is just as important as getting there quickly.

Relevance –> coherence, qualityactions other than the expected are acceptable when they are based on sound reasoning.

Accuracy –> compassionwhether a decision or action is acceptable depends upon how it makes people feel.

These days people are increasingly surprised to get any response at all, much less a quick one. Knowing that someone will show up every time they need help has become every bit as important as knowing that such help will come quickly. People need to know they can depend upon government to try, even if it comes up short sometimes. Inconsistency lends itself to the impression of undependability, even when the lack of responsiveness in some circumstances leads to faster responses in others.

When performance deviates from expectations, people look to experts for understanding. They need to know that the actions fit the circumstances, and they often judge this in one of two ways: 1) by how hard people are trying and 2) by whether things get better or at the very least stop getting worse. It matters very little to those watching whether the actions they observe have a direct effect on the outcome so long as they can see people making an effort. If things get better or stop getting worse, they naturally assume that the result arises from the actions undertaken.

Even if things end badly, people often judge the quality of the outcome and its appropriateness by how those engaged in the effort made them feel. People understand implicitly that when things start badly they often end badly. But they also appreciate it when those who respond to remedy the effects of their errors avoid the temptation to find fault, allocate blame or pass judgment, especially without learning all the facts first.

I have translated these observations about public expectations into three fairly simple and straightforward statements to guide operations where I work:

We always show up! We are there for each other and our community when they need us.

We take decisive action to make things better. We are neither spectators nor observers. We take reasonable risks to achieve appropriate results and accept responsibility for all of our actions.

We engage everyone with compassion and respect. We treat people they way we want to be treated. We seek understanding by looking at ourselves and the situations we face the way others see us.

I cannot tell you that this approach will transform public opinion or translate into broad public approval or political support for our agency or its actions. But I  can say with confidence that taking this approach makes me feel better about what we do and how we do it. More importantly, it speaks to why wo do what we do: We serve the public for their sake not our own.

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

Impressive reporting from the Port of Oakland

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on November 2, 2011

The Guardian (UK) is reporting live from Oakland:


Wednesday a crowd estimated at between 5000 to 7000 shut down the Port of Oakland.  During most of the day no violence was reported.  But overnight some isolated vandalism prompted a strong police response.

Several days before Occupy Wall Street was mentioned anywhere (that I noticed) in US media.  The Guardian was giving the then small group of protesters front-page treatment.

Last week The Guardian’s US coverage of the Occupy movement shifted from a New York focus to an Oakland focus, just in time for a series of major events in Oakland.

The live blog being used in Oakland is a form The Guardian has also used effectively in Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere.  Note that times reported are Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).

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

November 1, 2011

Listening to a deaf falcon – homeland security in transition

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Christopher Bellavita on November 1, 2011

I returned recently from almost two months of seminars and conferences about homeland security. During that time I spoke with close to 150 people, all of whom have some involvement with the homeland security enterprise. Here are some random, unscientific observations I took away from those conversations. They all lead me to the conclusion that homeland security could use some new DNA.

1. Homeland security does not have a center of gravity. I think it once did, back in the day when the prime directive was prevent another terrorist attack.

On the other hand, I did find one person who could cite — almost verbatim — the 32 words in the new national preparedness goal. That should count for something.

2. The parts of the homeland security enterprise focus on too many different and important things. Can whole of community move beyond FEMA’s nouvelle idée? How great would that be,TSA, CPB, ICE, USSS, S&T, DNO, I&A, USCIS, USCG, states, territories, and tribes?

What would it even look like?

3. The overall feeling about homeland security I came away with reminds me of the first part of a Yeats poem:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

But that was just a feeling.

4. The money’s just about gone. And what’s left is going to get smaller. This may have been the primary theme over the past 2 months.

There were two general reactions to that reality: “What a waste” and “Deal with it.”

The what a waste voices complained about the inevitable deterioration of the capabilities that have been built over the past decade. The deal with it voices said we’re going to have to suck it up and find new ways of working — like regionalization and sharing things — so the capabilities do not deteriorate.

The deal with it sounds gave me confidence that grownups continue to hold homeland security together.

5. Doing less with less. Government should be run more like a business, people often say.  Excluding, of course, those who say government is run by business.

Let’s try running homeland security — across the country — like Jack Welch used to run GE. Put programs in three categories: good (20%), average (70%), and poor (10%) performers. Each year, terminate the poor performing programs.

How to measure performance? Let the programs decide, in public.

No, it’s not perfect, and the 20/70/10 approach has significant disadvantages.  But combine that with the process Tim Harford describes in his book “Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure” — try new things; know some will fail; make failure survivable; make sure you know when you’ve failed — and see what happens.

6. The threat is (still) overblown, I heard a few speakers suggest.  Maybe a few years ago the threat was significant — let’s just say it was. Now, not so much. Two out of our three wars are sort of over. (Even that sentence canot be expressed directly.) Al Qaeda is as gasping as Gaddafi’s final “Do you know right from wrong?” question.

There will always be natural disasters.  Not much prevention there.  What about “mitigation?” the emergency managers in the groups always brought up. Don’t forget pandemics, whispered the unceasingly quiet public health voice.

There is a non-zero probability of a biological attack, a dirty bomb, a domestic nuclear detonation, a chemical attack — you know the list. But the probability/possibility/plausibility of one of those events is too small to justify spending much money building prevention or response programs. The money could be better used elsewhere.

That message was never well received. Much of the time the listeners attacked the claim before allowing the speaker to finish constructing the argument. It was almost as if there were an incentive in the homeland security enterprise to amplify the threat.

There was one threat no one — speaker or listener — argued against: IEDs and small arms tactics.

7. In spite of the almost knee jerk defense of remaining alert to the conventional unconventional threats, there was a sense among the people I spoke with and listened to that these traditional threats are moving into the “Tired” category.

Several groups said focusing on Islam, al Qaeda, and typical terrorism was getting dull. Not because the issues were unimportant or uninteresting — “eternal vigiliance” and all that.  But because the topics focus too much on the past. They wanted homeland security to pay more attention to the future: cyber, synthetic biology, and slow moving threats like climate change and planetary resource depletion. Even Occupy Whatever came up as something worthy of homeland security concern — not the people bringing the message, but the message they bring.

8. There is a well known paper in the public safety community by Dave Grossman called “On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs.” Sheep (most Americans) live in denial that evil exists in the world; “that is what makes them sheep.” But there are wolves (the evil guys) who “feed on the sheep without mercy.” Then there are sheepdogs (the good guys) who “live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.”

Where, asked a friend who works in the Enterprise and who spends a lot of time thinking about doing the right thing, are the shepherds in this tactical metaphor?

9. There were numerous discussions about rights and duties, and about the need for some serious civic lessons throughout the country.

Occupy Wall Street — is that an example of people meeting their civic responsibility to remedy ineffective national governance and cororate greed? Are privacy objections to the new TSA “chat up” procedures — and there are objectors in the first responder community — examples of neglecting one’s civic duty to support legitimate authority?

The Constitution mentions rights over a dozen times. Duty shows up thrice, and in each case it refers to a financial charge not a responsibility.

What duties do Americans have in the homeland security enterprise? The QHSR says people have the responsibility to

“take the basic steps to prepare themselves for emergencies … reducing hazards in and around their homes… monitoring emergency communications carefully, volunteering with established organizations, mobilizing or helping to ensure community preparedness, enrolling in training courses, and practicing what to do in an emergency…. In addition, individual vigilance and awareness can help communities remain safer and bolster prevention efforts.”

These duties will not stir Tea Party or Occupy Party convictions.

10. To mashup Anne-Marie Slaughter’s introduction to the “National Strategic Narrative,”

The United States needs a homeland security narrative. We have a national security strategy [and a National Preparedness Goal],… but those are documents written by specialists for specialists. They do not answer a fundamental question that more and more Americans [should be] asking. Where is [homeland security] going? How can we get there? What are the guiding stars that will illuminate the path along the way? We need a story with a beginning, middle, and projected happy ending that will transcend our political divisions, orient us as a [people], and give us both a common direction and the confidence and commitment to get to our destination.


Yeats ends his poem with a question:

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Maybe Steve Jobs spoke an answer with his final words: “Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow.”

That’s a feeling that might guide even a deaf falcon toward an evolutionary reconstruction of homeland security.



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

October 31, 2011

Test anthrax vaccine on children: A bad biodefense policy idea

Filed under: Biosecurity,WMD — by Alan Wolfe on October 31, 2011

I was surprised, last week, to see this story in the Washington Post about the efforts of a working group of the National Biodefense Science Board. Seems that, back in April, the board decided to examine whether children should receive the standard anthrax vaccine in the event of a wide-area anthrax attack on the nation. Although it’s not explained well in the story, it is assumed that this would be a post-treatment administered under emergency matters after an attack, rather than as a pre-treatment.

“At the end of the day, do we want to wait for an attack and give it to millions and millions of children and collect data at that time?” said Daniel B. Fagbuyi of Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, who chaired the group. “Or do we want to say: ‘How do we best protect our children?’ We can take care of Grandma and Grandpa, Uncle and Auntie. But right now, we have nothing for the children.”

Yes, oh who will think of the children? As the article explains, the vaccine has been tested for safety for the military, but it doesn’t explain that the vaccine’s efficacy is sometimes in question. Critics of the vaccine note that it hasn’t been tested against humans who have been exposed to a weaponized form of anthrax. And that’s true. There have been animal models that show the airborne vaccine should be both safe and efficacious for humans. And all of our researchers and veterinarians who work with anthrax use the vaccine, without any losses. Both the airborne vaccine and the natural form of vaccine work in the same way on the human body. So we’re pretty sure it’s a very good vaccine.

But back to the children. Medical experts and emergency responders have always been concerned about the “sensitive population” and how they are treated in the event of an emergency. Yes, it’s possible that an anthrax vaccine developed for adults might be too powerful for children or have detrimental side effects. We don’t know. But the chance of a wide-area anthrax attack affecting thousands, let alone “millions and millions of children,” is almost zero. Close enough to zero to not worry about it.

Except for this National Biodefense Science Board.  They decided, on a vote of 12-1, that in fact, we do need to have the vaccine tested on children in order to prepare for that day that is “not a matter of if, but when.”

“We need to know more about the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine as we develop plans to use the vaccine on a large number of children in the event of a bioterrorist’s attack,” said Ruth L. Berkelman of Emory University, a panel member.

Now these are smart people. I don’t doubt their sincerity or intelligence. I do question their common sense and rationality. The absolute possibility of a transnational terrorist attack involving kilograms of anthrax to cause such an event are just insignificant compared to the storm of controversy and outcry if the US government starts testing the anthrax vaccine on kids.

It doesn’t matter if the side effects of the anthrax vaccine are far less severe than nearly any other vaccine. It doesn’t matter if the U.S. government has been using this vaccine for over a decade and has literally millions of health records to study. The critics will argue that the government hasn’t proven the vaccine’s efficacy for adults, let alone children. And they’d be right, technically; but it still works. This is a lousy argument.

The recommendation to test the vaccine for use on children is just wrong.

Any sensible mayor or governor would suggest that the appropriate risk-management approach would be to plan and resource for the widespread use of Cipro or other antibiotics on the population, to include children and other sensitive population types, as a first course of action. And then if, and only if, an actual anthrax attack occurred, the parents would be asked if they want to take the chance on the vaccine – and sign a release form for its use. It needs to be explained that this is a post-treatment, and without its use, the affected patient may die a very horrible and sudden death. This testing is unnecessary because the scenario too remotely theoretical.

It’s really that simple. How our community responds to bioterrorism is too important to be left to the doctors. Let’s get some public policy analysts involved and make better decisions.


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

October 29, 2011

Scott Olsen: Personifying the turbulence and flux we face

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Philip J. Palin on October 29, 2011

The Tuesday night injury of a Marine veteran of two tours in Iraq while peacefully protesting in Oakland marks a major shift in my attitude toward the Occupy Movement.

Scott Olsen, age 24, was apparently struck by a tear gas canister as Oakland police attempted to clear “occupiers”  from the intersection of 14th and Broadway.   Mr. Olsen’s skull was fractured and he has been unable to speak since the injury.  See more details from the San Francisco Chronicle.  Additional information is also available at the Occupy Oakland website.

Occupy Nashville has been camping at Legislative Plaza in front of the state capitol.  After the Tennessee Governor declared a curfew, State police conducted a Friday pre-dawn raid that ended in twenty-nine arrests. Even more occupiers were back on Saturday. There were further arrests Saturday afternoon.  But a Nashville judge has released them finding the Governor has no legal authority to declare a curfew for the Capitol grounds.  See more news from The Tennessean and a relevant analysis by one of the newspaper’s columnists.

As I write this (6:30 PM Mountain Time) Denver police remain engaged in a day-long struggle with Occupy Denver on the steps of the Colorado state capitol and nearby.  See more at the Denver Post. This was the first day for a new police chief in Denver.

In all of these cases, according to the media reports I have read and a few emails and phone-calls from locals, the conflict has been prompted and/or seriously escalated by aggressive police activity.   My personal sources are public safety or retired public safety personnel.  This is in contrast with the so-far much more restrained police response in New York, Washington DC, Los Angeles and elsewhere.

Chris Bellavita was the first to write about Occupy Wall Street here at Homeland Security Watch.  When Chris made this choice I was not convinced the movement was a homeland security issue.  Mark Chubb has given the movement considerable attention.

While I understand — and usually support — the role of all-crimes, all hazards, and intelligence fusion as contributions to homeland security, that does not mean I always think homeland security has anything to contribute to the particular crime, specific hazard, or fusing of intelligence.   In the case of the Occupy Movement I did not even recognize a crime, hazard or legitimate intelligence target being involved.  I still don’t.

I am, however, an advocate for the homeland security discipline’s potential role in assisting our more command-and-control oriented colleagues to recognize when a complex adaptive system needs to be given enough space to resolve itself and, if possible, prevent the complex adaptive system from blowing up in our faces and injuring too many innocents along the way.


Many of the links embedded in the post above include updates on the situation in each city.

Denver strikes me as the most treacherous.  Trying to piece together several reports from Denver suggest there have been a series of tactical missteps that have contributed to the violence.  In particular, it sounds to me (and some of my sources) that too few police officers have been assigned to undertake clearing actions. This has tended to increase the force applied by the officers involved… and Newton’s third law of motion has been socially confirmed (again).

Early Sunday morning thirty-seven were arrested in Austin, but without significant violence.  The Austin city government has requested that Occupy Austin appoint leaders to meet Monday to discuss new rules for the occupation of the City Hall plaza.  There was a General Assembly of the Occupiers on Sunday night, but I cannot find a report of their decisions.  It is an interesting request to make of the resolutely leaderless movement.

Not included in yesterday’s post was a potentially important tactical shift by the Occupiers in Portland, Oregon.  There the protesters have begun to target the affluent  mostly residential Pearl District.  Jamison Square, a city park serving the Pearl District,  has a long-established midnight curfew which police enforced Saturday night.  There were thirty arrests, no significant violence was reported. (Also see Occupy Portland website.)

In Oakland and Nashville there was clearly an effort on all sides to avoid further confrontations on Saturday night.

According to a Sunday report in the San Jose Mercury-News, Scott Olsen is recovering. “Olsen was listed in critical condition at first, suffering damage to the speech center of his brain, according to Olson’s roommate, Keith Shannon. But though Olsen remained hospitalized Sunday and was not able to speak, doctors expect a full recovery, Shannon added. His condition Sunday was listed as fair.”

OCTOBER 31 UPDATE: The Occupy Together site has begun providing a round-ups of outcomes across the nation.

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

October 28, 2011

Persons and due process, terrorism and war

Filed under: Congress and HLS,Legal Issues,Terrorist Threats & Attacks — by Philip J. Palin on October 28, 2011

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States


Because most readers of Homeland Security Watch are also  news-nerds you may have noticed we killed another US citizen recently. Abdulrahman al-Awlaki the sixteen year old son of Anwar al-Awlaki was killed during a drone attack in Yemen.   The young American was traveling with Ibrahim al-Banna, media chief of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the presumed target of the attack.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki

Abdul had the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, in the care of bad guys, and being the son of a very bad guy. As far as we know though, he was not directly involved in planning or implementing terrorist actions against the United States.  No legal action had been taken in his regard, certainly no Grand Jury indictment.

There are some rumors (but only rumors) that al-Banna was taking Abdul and a 17 year-old cousin (also killed) to visit the remains of his father.

The US government does not officially comment on our drone operations in Yemen (or Pakistan).  While we have acknowledged the death of both father and son, we did not discuss the means or our involvement in the means.


I was surprised when reminded of the Bill of Rights use of “person” rather than “citizen.”   It has been an instructive surprise.

The differences between person and citizen have proliferated since the first amendments were adopted in 1791.   The French Revolution, the 14th Amendment, and increasing international mobility have all served to give enhanced attention to the  rights of citizenship.

But the Constitution still refers to persons.

The classical Latin persona was a  mask as used in Greek plays: A temporary and even misleading representation.  The early Christian church transformed our understanding of the word when Tertullian used it to explain the distinct “persons” of the Trinity.  Each person of the Trinity is a particular expression of an essential unity and substantive reality beyond the individual manifestation.

Through a complicated process of ecumenical councils, Medieval scholasticism, popular misunderstanding, and much more, Western culture came to view each individual as an expression of the divine.  This is the foundation of natural rights and the personhood of English Common Law.

The rise of nationalism has challenged the universalist claims of personhood.   Increasingly it is citizenship —  national identity — that matters, not some tendentious claim to being a child-of-God.

Congress is currently considering a new measure which would further diminish the personhood of non-citizens.    As adopted by the House of Representatives,  Section 1046 of the Defense Authorization Act reads,

After the date of the enactment of this Act, any foreign national, who–

(1) engages or has engaged in conduct constituting an offense relating to a terrorist attack against persons or property in the United States or against any United States Government property or personnel outside the United States; and

(2) is subject to trial for that offense by a military commission under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code;

shall be tried for that offense only by a military commission under that chapter.

This section is causing consternation among some Senators and administration officials. The General Counsel for the Department of Defense has critiqued this legislation as follows:

Section 1046 of the House bill imposes an across-the-board requirement that, if military commissions jurisdiction exists to prosecute an individual, we must use commissions, not the federal courts, for the prosecution of a broad range of terrorist acts. Decisions about the most appropriate forum inwhich to prosecute a terrorist should be left, case-by-case, to prosecutors and national security professionals. The considerations that go into those decisions include the offenses available in both systems for prosecuting a particular course of conduct, the weight and nature of the evidence, and the likely prison sentence that would result if there is a conviction. A flat legislative ban on the use of one system – whether it is commissions or the civilian courts — in favor of the other is not the answer.

A weak procedural critique, it seems to me.

Since the Constitution was adopted “due process of law” has changed in a variety of ways.  Military commissions meet a minimum test of due process.  But it is very difficult to imagine James Madison smiling at the prospect of military officers being preferred as the agents of the judicial power set out in Article III.


We are increasingly inclined to treat non-citizens as non-persons.  Our rights are less and less a matter of the dignity due any child of God.   For many, a non-citizen obviously does not deserve the rights of a citizen.  The non-citizen is inherently other and the other is innately a possible threat.  This is an entirely reasonable judgment based on a purely nationalist perspective.

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, born in Colorado, fan of The Simpsons and Harry Potter, was a citizen.  Some would claim he was also a suspect other and potential threat.   His personhood?  His citizenship?  Nice abstractions for a courtroom perhaps, but distractions in the midst of deadly conflict… others would argue.

I am concerned that as the source of our rights shift from existential personhood to instrumental citizenship our sense of shared identity and common dignity is diminished and the very concept of fundamental rights is weakened.

The Constitution still refers to persons.

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

October 26, 2011


Filed under: Events — by Mark Chubb on October 26, 2011

It should come as no surprise that the Queen of Soul was onto something.

The past few weeks I have been pondering the growth and spread of the Occupy Movement and the related undercurrent of political disquiet sweeping across the political spectrum here and abroad, and have wondered aloud what they might mean from a homeland security perspective. This week I am in New York to attend the Northeast Conference on Public Administration, which will be focused on the theme “Building Trust and Confidence in the Public Service.”

The paper I am presenting at this conference draws on several themes I have already explored in greater detail in this forum for many months. Drawing on these themes, I question whether the high public trust and confidence typically shown in public safety officers, particularly firefighters, translates into anything meaningful when it comes to public policy and effectiveness. After all, governors and state legislators enjoy incredibly low public trust and confidence ratings, but nevertheless managed to muster the political capital in several states needed to overcome objections by public employees unions and a small but committed band of supporters to strip public employees of their collective bargaining rights.

Given my interest in the Occupy Wall Street movement and its spin-offs, it only seemed reasonable to conduct some field research last night in Zuccotti Park. When I arrived shortly before 9:00 p.m., the protesters were still going strong. A police cordon was established around the park perimeter and a strong police presence was evident, including representatives from NYPD’s community affairs unit. The south side of the park was populated by TV satellite trucks from CNN and a couple local stations.

Although activities in the park were lively and loud, they certainly weren’t out of control. Small groups were in evidence amidst the tent city, and small groups of people could be found engaged in conversation. A few protestors on the east end of the park and someone dressed in a Santa suit made sure the TV cameras had something to shoot. At a teach-in or lecture in the southeast corner of the park, the crowd could be heard repeating the speaker’s main points in unison as a means of amplifying the message and projecting it beyond the reach of the meagre sound system.  Tables of leaflets and a lending library at the northeast corner of the encampment provided a large a diverse assortment of propaganda and reading material consistent with unfocused themes filtering through the gathering.

To be certain, the presence of anarchists, truthers, and cannabis legalization activists amidst the throng was clear. But so too were people from 18 to 80 years of age from what seemed a wide range of social, ethnic, religious and economic backgrounds. This was not simply a student protest or a protest led by unemployed workers or one promoting any single social agenda. The unifying theme, to the extend one could be found, seemed to be the overwhelming sense that the vast majority of Americans have grown disaffected with and disconnected from the social and economic system they once believed would ensure their success in exchange for hard work and good behavior.

Probably the most striking characteristic of the gathering was the utter absence of evidence that it was organized in any way. That said, posters at the main entry points promoted what passed for community standards. They seemed more like a plea or a pledge than any kind of command.

As I completed my walk around the perimeter of the park, I stopped for a moment to speak with one of the NYPD officers on the cordon. Officer Sheehan seemed young, but by no means naive or inexperienced. When I asked him whether he was yet to the point of having dreams that he came to work and found the park empty and the protesters dispersed as if nothing had happened, he smiled wanly and said he didn’t think the protesters were that much trouble. “They don’t want a piece of us, and we don’t want to mess with them,” he said.

As we talked, I explained that I was intrigued by his response in light of both my reason for visiting New York this week and coming to the park on this particular night. I told him I was more and more doubtful that public trust and confidence were helpful in implementing public policy even if they are useful to its making. As we talked candidly, I wondered aloud whether the best if not the most we could hope for in the near term was respect for government and its agents as opposed to genuine trust and confidence in their intentions and actions.

As we ended our conversation, Officer Sheehan sighed and said, “Yeah, respect. That would be nice.” Maybe the Occupy protesters are onto something after all.


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

October 25, 2011

Looking for interesting homeland security ideas

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Christopher Bellavita on October 25, 2011

Francis Bacon wrote a book in the early 1600s called “Sylva Sylvarum: or a Natural History in Ten Centuries.” In the book, Bacon used the word “resilience.”  To him it meant “The action or an act of rebounding or springing back.”

In the early 2000s, according to Appendix A of the September 2011 National Preparedness Goal report, resilience means “The ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption due to emergencies.”

In 4 centuries the meaning of resilience has not changed much.

I don’t know how the term came to be adopted by homeland security’s mainstream lexicographers, but the search for resilience now consumes a lot of attention inside the Enterprise.

Do you know other ideas not typically associated with homeland security that might have something interesting to offer the Enterprise?

If you do, the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security invites you to enter its annual essay competition.

The formal topic is: Identify a theory or insight from a field outside homeland security that has not been applied to homeland security but should be.

You can find the official rules, including how to enter, here.

Unofficially, here’s what the rules look like:

Submission Guidelines — Your response may be general, or focus on a specific element of or discipline in homeland security.  Essays may be written from any perspective – government, private sector, cultural, local community, citizen, and so on.

Who may enter — The competition is open to everyone with an interest in homeland defense and security.  Center for Homeland Defense and Security employees, students and graduates (of the Master’s or Executive Leaders Programs) are not eligible.

Competition Guidelines — The essay should be no more than five single-spaced pages.  Essays must be original and not published elsewhere.

Timeline — The deadline for submission is January 31, 2012. Finalists will be announced no later than May 31, 2012.

Criteria — Essays will be evaluated based on relevance to the question, innovativeness of the idea, strength of the argument, and quality of the writing.

Award — The winner will receive a $1000 cash award.  The winning and four top finalist essays will be considered for publication by Homeland Security Affairs, the online journal published by the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for the Homeland Defense and Security.

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

October 24, 2011

Packing Homeland Security Related Links

Filed under: General Homeland Security — by Arnold Bogis on October 24, 2011

I am in the weeds packing for a big move.  So instead of even a few paragraphs of analysis, I offer instead a virtual buffet of homeland security-related news links:

The most current homeland security news is the recent earthquake in Turkey. Information is constantly being updated, so instead of one specific article I would suggest following a news site with above-average international coverage.  For a good example, check out the the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15425268

Perhaps the largest domestic security not yet touched upon by others on this blog is the alleged plan for assassinating the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. by blowing up one of his favorite restaurants during his dinner (involving a used car salesman from Texas related to the head of an elite Iranian special forces group?).  Specifics of the case are still bubbling up to the public surface,yet  regardless the lines in the sand are already being drawn:

The Iranians are crazy!  (Cough…let’s invade yet another Mideast country…cough):


Perhaps not…maybe this is just an outcome of their decentralized governing structure and fractured domestic political system:


In the background is the looming nuclear threat.  Technical questions of if, when, how, and in what form could an Iranian nuclear arsenal (or virtual deterrent) might/could take aside, those parties advocating for a military solution might want to consider the historical record and resulting outcomes of previous efforts resulting from previous deployment of force to prevent proliferation:


In nuclear, but otherwise unrelated news, decontamination efforts in Japan following the Fukushima crisis ain’t cheap…with that in mind, is it worth while to reconsider the amount of focus given to research in decontamination technologies and research into radiation affects?


Finally, while the general idea sounds terrific, I can’t but help wonder what the specifics require in this George Washington University report applying “a systems-based approach” and “risk management principles” to “operationalizing” resilience.  There seems to be a lot of firepower within the group involved in developing this report, yet after reading it  I am left grasping for any semblence of something actually ready to be applied to real-world issues.  Can anyone with much deeper emergency managament experience either tell me why I’m on the right path or barking up the wrong tree?


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