View Full Version : Department of Homeland Security
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 12:18
Was this a good idea? Did it fix anything? Or is it just another layer of bureaucracy?
Team Sergeant
03-29-2004, 13:33
I'll let you know when I figure out what it is and what it's supposed to accomplish. So far the only visible sign they have left on the American psyche are those threat level “Colors.”
Originally posted by Team Sergeant
I'll let you know when I figure out what it is and what it's supposed to accomplish. So far the only visible sign they have left on the American psyche are those threat level “Colors.”
If they would have let the SOF's execute missions the way they trained to...and the LEO's operate with out politics/politicians trying lead the charge.
The "just another layer of bureaucracy" wouldn't be needed!
Sacamuelas
03-29-2004, 14:12
Based on what we have seen so far...
Was the creation of the Homeland Security Dept. a HONEST attempt at putting together a more cohesive and integrated CT/security/intelligence capability in place or just a political slight of hand designed to show the POTUS did "something" after 9-11?
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Based on what we have seen so far...
Was the creation of the Homeland Security Dept. a HONEST attempt at putting together a more cohesive and integrated CT/security/intelligence capability in place or just a political slight of hand designed to show the POTUS did "something" after 9-11?
Every time I fly. I catch HELL!
I guess I should mention that I carry a boresight and a pachtymer all the time. Laptop...PDA...and a pistol rig. :D
Originally posted by Guy
Every time I fly. I catch HELL!
I guess I should mention that I carry a boresight and a pachtymer all the time. Laptop...PDA...and a pistol rig.
I feel your pain here, It seems like I always get selected for a "random security screening". They always wonder why a person would need so many flashlights. :D
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 14:48
My understanding was DHS was formed to:
1. Correct the "intelligence failure" that is perceived to have led to 9/11
2. Correct the faults in INS that led to visas being issued to hijackers after the incident
3. Provide a coordinating activity for infrastructure protection, etc.
from the website:
The National Strategy for Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Act of 2002 served to mobilize and organize our nation to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks. This exceedingly complex mission requires a focused effort from our entire society if we are to be successful. To this end, one primary reason for the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security was to provide the unifying core for the vast national network of organizations and institutions involved in efforts to secure our nation. In order to better do this and to provide guidance to the 180,000 DHS men and women who work every day on this important task, the Department developed its own high-level strategic plan. The vision and mission statements, strategic goals and objectives provide the framework guiding the actions that make up the daily operations of the department.
Vision
Preserving our freedoms, protecting America ... we secure our homeland.
Mission
We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation. We will ensure safe and secure borders, welcome lawful immigrants and visitors, and promote the free-flow of commerce.
Strategic Goals
Awareness -- Identify and understand threats, assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts and disseminate timely information to our homeland security partners and the American public.
Prevention -- Detect, deter and mitigate threats to our homeland.
Protection -- Safeguard our people and their freedoms, critical infrastructure, property and the economy of our Nation from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
Response -- Lead, manage and coordinate the national response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
Recovery -- Lead national, state, local and private sector efforts to restore services and rebuild communities after acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies.
Service -- Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade, travel and immigration.
Organizational Excellence -- Value our most important resource, our people. Create a culture that promotes a common identity, innovation, mutual respect, accountability and teamwork to achieve efficiencies, effectiveness, and operational synergies.
---
Could also be called the "Total War Department" from the description
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 14:56
The problem I have with it mostly is the "correct the intelligence failure by providing a clearinghouse for intel" - which IIRC was a key selling point.
This was already done in 1947 with the National Security Act. The DCI has the job already, he just doesn't or isn't allowed to do it.
IMO, there are too many cooks in the terrorism soup.
I haven't heard of any leads on the anthrax case, other than Hatfield is suing Ashcroft for the "person of interest" labeL. Who's investigating this and why isn't it showing results?
Is the OKC case closed?
Too many chiefs and not enough Native Americans.
I would do it differently.
Team Sergeant
03-29-2004, 14:59
Todays news 34% increase in 6 months, someones not doing their job.
U.S. Considers Plan to End Illegal Border Crossings, NYT Says
March 29 (Bloomberg) -- Illegal border crossings into Arizona have increased 34 percent in the last six months, prompting the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to consider a plan that would return illegal immigrants from Mexico deeper into their country upon capture, the New York Times said.
U.S. and Mexican officials are discussing a plan to ``repatriate'' border crossers from Mexico by transporting them to their hometowns rather than returning them close to the border, the Times reported. Officials hope the move will prevent repeated attempts at entering the U.S., the newspaper reported.
Asa Hutchinson, an undersecretary at Homeland Security, said U.S. officials are committed to the idea, the Times reported.
An unnamed Mexican diplomat said Mexico wouldn't support the plan unless it was voluntary, the paper said.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=a81Ic2hKsvJ0&refer=latin_america
Sacamuelas
03-29-2004, 15:07
My next question would be about the possible disconnection between current US military assets/intelligence gathering efforts in the WOT with that of the new D.H.S. Is their enough timely sharing of information and cooperation between the two organizations (one domestic and one Mainly foreign) to maximize the usefulness of what/who we know to be threats to national security?
I can see where the new "all inclusive" DHS might require more admiinistrative time for "complete review" and 'check off' by all the different agencies under it before the information is disseminated to other agencies(ex. military for a snatch/DA type mission against an individual/safe house). Anyone agree or disagree?
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
I would do it differently. What would you do?
Originally posted by lrd
What would you do?
I'd starting hitting them on there own "TURF"!
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 15:51
Disband DHS
DCI would be the DCI - a professional, not a politician
Central Intelligence Agency would be central - all intel would flow through there. Set it back up like the old OSS
Set up a language/cultural school for Spec Ops, CIA, etc. ONE
Beef up the ops side of CIA and allow lateral transfers from Spec Ops again. However soldiers would continue to get promoted etc.
No more FBI overseas - INS, FBI, ATF all report to the same guy, probably the AG. The legats should be imbedded in major police departments. NYC, LA, Chicago - which would have input in agent eval forms.
All visas from target countries have to be cleared though the CIA
CIA publish the FTO list, not State
State Dept completely refocused. No more homesteading. All State intell and CT personnel moved to CIA
Allow racial profiling from target countries
Put everyone on the same comms system - like an Amber alert type deal. As long as they have a clearance, which they should all have.
Regionally focus task organized teams for combined counter-terrorism teams. Have the ME desk in one place, the LATAM desk in another. probably co-located with the military command for that area.
Anybody doesn't cooperate with his counter-part - he goes to baggage screener the desk day.
Make everybody working in CT sign an oath of enlistment, not a labor contract.
Change the standards - no more Ivy League diploma requirements for example.
At least every other assignment is overseas in a crap area. Find out who really wants to be there.
Make agents go through military training and vice versa.
Allow groups to train together to build relationships.
Make the military intel side one service. No more "each service has its own deal". The Intelligence Force.
Make the Coast Guard part of the Navy.
Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate. There are too many services, too many layers, too many organizations and too many bosses.
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 15:54
Originally posted by Guy
I'd starting hitting them on there own "TURF"!
Right. That new guy from HAMAS would be first. You make a threat as the leader of a tango org, you pay the price.
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 15:55
Go forth and "Set the ME ablaze!" LOL
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 15:58
Oh yeah, put The Reaper in charge of it all with the Team Sergeant as deputy/Ops Boss.
"Who issued a visa to a hijacker in October?"
"Uh, that was me sir."
BOOM - rucksack goes flying down the main hallway of Foggy Bottom.
Sacamuelas
03-29-2004, 16:04
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Right. That new guy from HAMAS would be first. You make a threat as the leader of a tango org, you pay the price.
I am waiting for one of your gurus to start a thread on this loser.
back to this thread's topic...
Great ideas NDD. :lifter
How much information do you make available to the public?
Originally posted by lrd
How much information do you make available to the public?
Do you allow the public to be scared shitless by the truth? If so, how do you control the effects upon the economy?
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 16:15
Anything that doesn't compromise sources and methods. They stole that color code thing from me, I've been using it for years. It actually works very well if you know how to use it.
You can't put a country the size of the US on the same color - it doesn't tell you anything. You also have to have specific actions to take.
Right now, just going off the news, I would have:
New England - Medium
Texas - Red with the Houston area critical or whatever
Midwest - low (except for maybe Chi-Town)
etc.
With high, police agencies would be forced to step up patrols of critical facilities for example.
This is just a rough idea.
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 16:16
Originally posted by Para
Do you allow the public to be scared shitless by the truth? If so, how do you control the effects upon the economy?
define economy
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
define economy
The stock market as the public's preception of the quality of the economy. Everyday the news talks about the rise or fall of the NYSE, NASDAQ, Dow Jones, etc... To many bad days leading to talks of recession and public preception becomes a reality. Trading slows, value drops in those exchanges that do happen. Companies have less financial capability, less net worth to borrow money and job growth stiffles or unemployment begins. Companies and people stop spending money because of these insecurities, demand drops and supplies stock pile, and the cycle compounds upon itself.
Why did the news of the POTUS getting a BJ by an intern effect the economy? Was it a tangible economic effect or just a precieved preception of insecurity within the nation? Was the fall of the NYSE, Dow a true measure of finacial instability within our economy following 9/11? Sure, the airline industry should have taken a hit, but how true was the measure of loss to MicroSoft, GE, BioMed, etc...?
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 17:06
So, you measure America's productivity by the NYSE?
If we told everybody that the sky was falling, American's would still get up in the morning and go to work. You can say it would effect the NYSE, but please don't say it would effect the economy - two different things.
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
IMO, there are too many cooks in the terrorism soup.
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Was the creation of the Homeland Security Dept. a HONEST attempt at putting together a more cohesive and integrated CT/security/intelligence capability in place or just a political slight of hand designed to show the POTUS did "something" after 9-11?
Both are related. In a bureaucracy, the first reaction to a crisis is to reorganize. It's easy, cheap, and looks like you're doing something. Which is exactly how we got all the stuff out of 9/11... the demand of the people for their leaders to 'do something', whether it's actually wise or not.
As for the number of agencies and consolidation, good luck. I think it's a good idea, you think it's a good idea... we all do. But right now, if you want cash from the government? Make a fuss about terrorists. It's the biggest boat in town. Check out: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040329/nhomeland.html. Article's about how, just like everything else, terror money's turned into just another porkbarrel boondoggle. For example: "In early 2003, Congress announced a plan that sounded as if it might rectify the distortions in federal outlays—a new $100 million grant for "high threat" urban areas only. In April, Secretary Ridge said seven cities had made the "high threat" list because of population density, the presence of important infrastructure and credible threats—which is to say, because of risk. The roster of cities—New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco and Houston—matched up perfectly with AIR's list of most at-risk cities. // Soon, however, the list of qualifying cities started mysteriously growing. Ridge's office and Congress had received calls from irate city officials who had been left out. In May the roster grew to 30 cities. But the pool of money also expanded by $700 million, so it didn't seem like a problem. "We're thinking, O.K., we're getting 18% of the pot. That's reasonable," remembers an aide for a New York member of Congress. Then, for 2004 money, the Department of Homeland Security announced an even longer list of 50 cities, including Columbus, Ohio, and Fresno, Calif."
This is the main problem, I'd think. Consolidation would solve both problems: it would streamline and increase efficiency, while at the same time eliminating the 'turf war' intelligence problem between agencies. But will it happen? No, if for no other reason than that all these agencies are headed by politicians.
--Dan
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 17:40
You're right of course Dan. But they asked me what I would do.
I don't measure America's productivity by the value of the stock market, but I do think Americans as a whole, do associate the strength of our economy by what happens on the stock market over a period of time. With that, I do believe Americans allow intangibles to effect the stock markets, which effect the value of a publically traded company and over time, this will effect the economy, to which this will ultimately effect productivity leading to unemployment. The current cost of funds is allowing corporate America to do more with less, but how much lower can it go? But this is way off topic, so back to the stick at hand.
NousDefionsDoc
03-29-2004, 17:47
Originally posted by Para
stick
Ummmmmm, you said the "s" word! TEAM SERGEANT!
Are you trying to get everyone mad at me?
Surgicalcric
03-29-2004, 18:46
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
...Put everyone on the same comms system - like an Amber alert type deal. As long as they have a clearance, which they should all have...
Its already happening, and is not limited to federal LEO/Agencies. And no clearance needed to talk on the local level.
DHS and FEMA are behind a large push to get every public service agency (LEO, Fire, and EMS) onto 800mHz and off whatever platform they are using now. Most PSA's are multiplexing UHF, but there are still some who use simplex VHF. These are generally the smaller municipal agencies. The reason for this is interoperability.
Shortly after 9.11.01 we, Greenville City, received a grant for 1.28 million from FEMA to upgrade our communications center and switch from our multi-site UHF repeater to 800mHz. The purpose of the change was to allow local agencies communications capability with federal agencies without the IC carrying multiple radios around on scene or having 5 or 6 different radios in the mobile command post. Now every LEO, paramedic, and fire officer has the ability to talk with the local FBI office, FEMA, etc...
Is this a good idea? From an IC standpoint it’s a very good idea. Is it going to change much? Not that I can see. By all appearances it is convenience issue.
I would be interested to hear from the LEO's here if the comms issue has affected their agency in any way.
Sacamuelas
03-29-2004, 18:56
Surgicalcric-
Not LE, however, in my area the three main cities LE/FIRE/EMT systems along with the three main county operations in the area are going to an integrated radio/dyspatch system.
That will encompass the entire coast just south of hattiesburg to the water and from AL to LA state lines. All the little cities around can "buy in" to the system too.
Great interagency idea, especially during large scale disaster/emergency operations.
Surgicalcric
03-29-2004, 19:08
Maybe we should start another thread for the subject of interagency communications.
From my experience centralized disatch is rarely the answer to municipal interagency comms problems. And sharing dispatch responsibilities is another subject unto itself. You would be suprised by the lack of communication when everyone is in the same room.
Having everyone on the same system is a great idea though. When you can just change subgroups and talk to either city or county FD; city or county EMS; city, county, state, or federal LE; or a multitude of other agencies it saves time. In my line of work time is life. And I am all about saving lives.
I hope things are better managed where you are than they have been in other areas.
I agree with Surgicalcric. I was a police Explorer for a small town northeast of Ft. Worth. On New Year's Eve 2000, they had us come in to the PD to act as runners between City hall and the centralized LE/EMS/FD dispatch in the event of a communications failure. Anyway, despite being in the same room, there was still a severe lack of communication from service to service, and from service to the overall command at city hall. By the end of the night it was so hectic in there with all of the different command structures butting heads, that I retired to the arms room to help one of the officers unload the dozens of colt SMG mags that were not needed and place them back in storage. Just my .02
Surgicalcric
03-30-2004, 12:46
Well the thread was getting plenty of traffic until I had to go off on a comms tangent.
:lifter
It's alright Cric, I'm with ya
NousDefionsDoc
03-30-2004, 13:46
No, its fine. Go right ahead. Watch the opsec.
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Now every LEO, paramedic, and fire officer has the ability to talk with the local FBI office, FEMA, etc...
Is this a good idea?
It would seem that this would complicate the situation and "clutter" the net. One could argue that Frank the fireman in the thick of things would not necessarily need to communicate with the Feds across town. Dedicate a section of the on scene command element to handle the interagency communications.
Or just regulate access to the higher ranks... That way Chain of Command takes care of things, and there's no need to create another subordinate unit.
Solid
Surgicalcric
03-30-2004, 15:19
Not every firefighter has a radio, but all of the fire officers do and so do the engineers as well as both EMS crew members.
It is the responsibility of the first arriving engine company, rescue company, or Bus to initiate Incident Command and thusby ensure proper management of the incident: personnel, assets, subordinate commands. As other officers higher in the CoC arrive the responsibility of Command may continue with the initial IC or it may be turned over to a ranking officer, which is the general rule.
Once the fire officer/firefighter/paramedic initiates command a dispatcher is then dedicated to that incident and Command will be assigned a tactical subgroup (channel) for all radio traffic from then on to be carried on. This keep from congesting the dispatch and med channels with the chatter of command. The IC will be talking on 3 or 4 different subgroups depending on the incident and what agencies are involved.
The purpose of every person having the ability to talk is you never know who will be the IC or area command and for how long that person may be in a command position before relieved. Many will never even use those subgroups, but they are there if the need were to arise.
Edited to add:
The old days where an individual could just key up a radio and make stupid comments or play the stereo in anonymity is long gone. Each time I key my WT or mobile everyone else on that given subgroup can see, on their LCD display, whose radio it is thats been squelched. All the radios have identifiers individual to that user.
The Reaper
03-30-2004, 17:56
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Edited to add:
The old days where an individual could just key up a radio and make stupid comments or play the stereo in anonymity is long gone. Each time I key my WT or mobile everyone else on that given subgroup can see, on their LCD display, whose radio it is thats been squelched. All the radios have identifiers individual to that user.
Not in Chicago.
TR
Surgicalcric
03-30-2004, 18:25
The capability is there on VHF, UHF, 800mHz and 900mHz systems to track transmissions once the PTT is depressed. Infact, if its a trunking system (jumps freqs from one Tx to another) radio recognition is required for the system to function.
Edited to add:The above is only true for system owned and operated radios. If someone hacks into the system ( ie disgruntled employee, radio service tech with a bad sense of humor, etc) the tracking system is generally cloned from another radio and the identifier changed to some alpha numeric code recognized on the system but not one thats issued to personnel.
Hope thats more clear.
Ockham's Razor
03-31-2004, 01:44
Ir seems much to do with putting together a group of agencies that basically have to fight each other for funding. Each Agency thinks they are more integral than the other and a sort of institutional mind-set of "the other side just does not get what we do" seems to set in. FBI vs CIA is old news. Personally, I think they have a better chance of patching things up than many of the other domestic Agencies.
INS and BP are woefully inadequate in handling the tasks they are assigned. I think the blame lies half at their own administration (agency level) and half at the funding level. I do not have an inside line, all I can speak of is personal observation, and results published. For example, when a computer system of some sort proves to be inadequate to the task of whatever agency (not specific for OPSEC) why not immediately scrap it, admit an error, instead of keeping it, and dealing with the hassle so that the person who made the decision does not have to admit an error.
This kind of thinking is all too common in the corporate mind-set. Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations... (Though GUY's philosophy is still very important on the personal level) There are two agencies that now have to work much closer because of DHS that are fighting over this very issue.
Until the agency administrators start thinking about what is best in the long-run for the Republic over what is on their coffee mug or how they are going to wrestle more money from another agency to their own, we're not going to resolve these gaps.
I happen to think everyone at every agency is incredibly patriotic and they do incredible jobs, they just need to change their struture a bit in order to work with other agencies that all have the same goal, the safest Republic that we can have. Nothing is 100%, though with the men and women in service at that level, I think we can come closer to that number than anyone imagines.
The less fighting there is amongst ourselves, the more fighting we can do against "them". I do not think DHS is the answer, but we do have to start somewhere. If for nothing else, I am happy to see USCG out from under DOT. They get very little credit from the public, but have a crucial role to play in this endeavour. hopefully they get all the funds they need, all agencies keep moving towards cooperation, and in the end we are a stronger unit because of 9/11. It sounds callous to say, but my hope is that 9/11 will strengthen us in the furtherence of this goal. Every agency, political in-fighting aside, is on the same playbook. We just have to figure out how to adapt some square pegs to fit into round holes. We're America, we will find a way.
NousDefionsDoc
03-31-2004, 11:11
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee asked Thursday for clarification about which federal agency is ultimately responsible for the analysis of foreign and domestic intelligence on threats to the United States and whether the lines of authority are clear.
Two prominent members of the committee said they have not been able to get a definitive explanation about whether the Homeland Security Department, the Defense Department or the CIA has chief responsibility for integrating and disseminating intelligence information on threats to the country. Sen.
Susan Collins, R-Maine, said administration officials have yet to answer in a "satisfactory manner" two letters sent last year that questioned which agency was responsible for coordinating intelligence.
"I am told that the reason we haven't received an answer to our letters is that DHS, DoD and CIA can't agree on an answer, which implies to me that the lines of authority are not clear and that the answer is still being devised," Collins said during a hearing on Defense's role in homeland security.
Source: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/032504c1.htm
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Was this a good idea? Did it fix anything? Or is it just another layer of bureaucracy?
No.
Often it is unclear if we are fighting a common enemy or each other.
Roguish Lawyer
04-06-2004, 15:31
Originally posted by Jimbo
Often it is unclear if we are fighting a common enemy or each other.
How could this problem be fixed?
Too bad the media and politicians made fun of Gov. Ridge's recommendations, instead of encouraging folks to do this (http://www.ready.gov/overview.html) .