Homeland Security

Group Wrap Up

2004-12-06T11:30:00.000-08:00

We choose to create a homeland security blog for several reasons. We had very little prior knowledge on the subject and as concerned citizens we realize the vital role the DHS plays today and will play in the future. We thought it would be an important topic in the months surrounding the election. It was also an excellent medium to express ourselves and exchange ideas about the DHS. By having several contributors, we were able to bring together different points of views on homeland security. The flexibility and access to each other's ideas really helped develop the topic as a whole more effectively.

At the beginning of the project, we sought to shed light upon the department's spending policy, effectiveness, and current plans. It seems like the DHS is surrounded in secrecy, and as a relatively new department that is still growing, it still needs to grow and change. Keeping up with the changes also teaches us about how politics and the government really works as we see this Department develop. Near the end of the project, it seems like we have completed our goals and learned more about the DHS than we expected.

Farewell Tom Ridge

2004-12-05T11:44:00.000-08:00

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/news/opinion/10344087.htm

As Tom Ridge steps down and a new Homeland Security Secretary moves in I think it is important to look back on all the good things that ridge and the DHS have done in their three years of existence. Much of this blog has been devoted to pointing out the shortcomings and failures of the DHS, so I would like to take this time to brag on it a little bit.

Tom Ridge was given arguably the most difficult job that a man has ever been given under some very uncertain circumstances. He was asked, after one of the two most gruesome attacks on US soil, to not only prevent this from every happing again and to educate the American people with sending them into a panicked frenzy. Whether you attribute it to luck or hard work and insight or maybe both, Ridge has done this. America has not been attacked since 9/11 and I can confidently say that I am more aware of the threat now then I was three years ago.

Sure the DHS has some problems and some kinks in the system but that is to be expected from a brand new cog in a very elaborate government. The DHS has been forced to completely restructure several parts of the US government, including the CIA and FBI, and for my money they have done a pretty good job. The terror alert level has not been raised in over a year and I think that most Americans are starting to feel safe again. And so to Tom Ridge I say Job well done and to the next guy, whoever you may be, I hope you can pick up where Ridge left off and continue to work out the kinks and make America safe again.

Privacy

2004-12-04T11:38:00.000-08:00

An important topic has been brought up, and that is how much privacy should be given up in order to ensure that our country is secure? No person, American, European, or elsewhere in the world is comfortable with the idea that the government could be following them around, that their personal information is in computer systems and all of this being done pretty much without their knowledge or consent. It's an unnerving thing to think about. The main question is whether or not this is all necessary to maintain a safe country. I believe, to an extent, that it is. We, as Americans, need to have faith that our government is not going to use our information against us and trust them to make proper use of it. Giving up some rights for the good of the country is not going to hurt that much. After the pass of the Patriot Act, where the government can listen into phone calls and the like for key phrases, many people have felt that their privacy has been invaded.

The government is not using this to track everyone in the United States. General citizens should have nothing to worry about. If you are not planning a terrorist attack on the country or know information about any future attacks, then the government isn't going to keep following you around. If you have nothing to hide, then why not let the government get information about you. It shouldn't be a big deal. Privacy can be given up to keep the security of our country, so I think its a good idea to keep information on the people flying on US airlines, especially people who are foreign.

Homeland Security Timeline

2004-12-02T02:20:00.000-08:00

There was an article in USA Today on Dec 1 that had a timeline of a bunch of homeland security events ranging from the departments inception to present day. This was extrememy interesting because by tracing the different programs implemented over the years, one can gauge the effectiveness as well as the impact of this relatively new government department. Many of the topics have to do with checking airports and seaports, monitoring imports and stuff. I guess this is pretty effective, but from what I gather, if someone still wanted to smuggle something dangerous, they could still do it. This indicates a lack of effectiveness in the department.

I feel that instead of focusing on preventing items from entering America, resources could better be spent defending against the resources that do get brought in. It would be fairly easy to create a prioritized target list of plaecs terrorists are likely to strike then slowly build up defenses such as shelters, improved rescue facilities, etc.

THe link is from lexus nexus and can be found here

Privacy Rights

2004-12-01T02:56:00.000-08:00

I feel that the proposed plan of the TSA is borderline insane. There are many ways to check on terrrorist activity aside from querying every single person around. There have been countless cases of innocent civilians being detained, or even charged with crimes, for resembling--closely or loosely, it doesnt even matter--suspected terrorists, people they dont even know for sure to be a threat. This seems to be focusing lots of resources on what is a veritable needle in a haystack search. Except in this case, there might not even be a needle, or there might be and it moves around and changes, or disguises itself to look like hay.

What I am trying to say is that this is a criminal waste of resources, not to mention unnecessary violation of privacy and I think that it is an extremely poorly thought out plan.

Thoughts on the Ready Campaign

2004-11-29T14:39:00.000-08:00

Daniel’s response to the article on the teaming up of the DHS and the Ad Council in support of the Ready Campaign seems logical. While the campaign encourages parents to talk with their children about natural disasters and other emergency situations, there is no set safety procedure for a terrorist attack. The Ready Campaign may have sparked communication between parents and their children, but it lacks convincing evidence that we can be safe during a terrorist attack.

Just like the nuclear scares of the latter part of the 20th Century that drove many to build fall-out shelters, I believe that the government is trying to convince America that there are ways to remain safe from terrorist attacks. Contrary to popular belief of the time, there was no way to remain safe from a nuclear attack, and there are little ways to remain safe from a terrorist attack. Safety is directly proportional to the amount of time a person has before a disaster strikes. A tornado, hurricane, flood, or even fire often provides time to prepare; a bomb does not. And since most of the terrorist attacks we are accustomed to happen within a split second, I am skeptical to believe the government has a solution.

The Ready Campaign seems more like a “filler” for the DHS—something for public relation’s sake. I seem very critical of the plan, but that is only because I was angered to see how much money does not go to good use by the DHS. If the DHS can prove to make the Ready Campaign effective, I may be eating my words. Until then, I think this will be another belly-up disaster—I mean failure.

Privacy vs. Security

2004-11-29T11:23:00.000-08:00

Grants article about the proposed plan of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) poses an interesting question. How much privacy should be limited or taken away in the name of better security? I completely understand the European nations’ concerns that this new act would be in conflict with their existing privacy laws; however, I also realize the importance of airline safety in the aftermath of 9/11. I think that the line between privacy and security is an interesting balance that must be carefully looked at when making any decision such as this. My only hope is that US citizens will not sit back and allow the government to completely strip them of all privacy in the name of security because that would be a very sad existence.

In respects to current problem I think that is important for the governments of all parties involved to sit down and hash this thing out because right now the only losers are the airlines. If they follow the new regulations European nations will fine them and if they don’t the US will fine them. The biggest problem that I see in this how situation however, is that it seems as if the US government is being very secretive. If they release some actual details about the proposed plan other then just the broad overview that they have given us it could dispel a lot of the fears held by Europe and myself. This is one of the many problems currently plaguing the DHS.

New Meaning to the Term: "Check-In"

2004-11-27T17:19:00.000-08:00

Legal questions in Europe, U.S. surround passenger screening program

The Transportation Security Administration has proposed a new plan that may violate the privacy of those who fly commercial airlines. “Secure Flight” is an operation that was recently instituted by the TSA, a division within the Department of Homeland Security, that demands the personal information of flyers so that it can be compared to the information of suspected terrorists. While many airline corporations realize the need for such actions, there are rising concerns in Europe that the operation may break European Union privacy laws.
When I first read of the news, I agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union that the Secure Flight test may violate a law that states the DHS can not spend money to use commercial databases until the Government Accountability Office has reviewed the plan. I feel that this would just add to the idea of an overbearing government that is suppose to stand for freedom. Privacy is a right to those who live in America; it seems that since 9/11 our freedom of privacy has been overtaken by safety concerns.
Here is a case where the government is doing what is best. By examining flight information, they will be able to track potential terrorists. The government is already capable of accessing more personal information than most people realize. I would certainly not want to step foot on an airplane unwarily with a person that has intentions of doing something destructive. If this new order by the TSA can prevent such things as that, I am all for it. This may also lead to the location of larger groups of terrorists--where they live and where they meet. The benefits of the TSA’s plan will far outnumber the bad effects. This is a simple program that will ultimately increase safety for the nation with making little noticeable effect on every day lives.

Hiding Behind the Curtains

2004-11-26T13:01:00.000-08:00

Ellis’s article discusses the secrecy of spending in the Department of Homeland Security. Ever since 9/11, police departments, fire departments, and other agencies can now spend anti-terrorism money freely without any public oversight. This ties into the issue arising with the efficiency and pork barrel legislation regarding the department. As of now, Wisconsin and New York receive equal amounts of money to spend on anti-terrorism, but the terrorists can tell a big difference between the two and which one is more important. It seems absurd to keep all funding behind a curtain of secrecy. But some officials argue that exposing the budget could be potentially dangerous and that some things need to be secret. Releasing information on spending could jeopardize their security instead of protecting. However, it is clear to most citizens that the spending should be made public because they could think the system is corrupt and begin to speculate where all the money goes. In general, spending should be made public to everyone, and if officials are worried about jeopardizing security, they do not need to give the information out, or they could simply just say they are spending money towards a broader goal. For example, if they are trying to change and reform nuclear safety processes, they could simply classify the money under energy or nuclear power. The majority of spending should be made public though because there really is nothing to hide as terrorists can find out about the weak points in the U.S. and can easily discern what is important to target versus what is not. Also, by making spending public, it would cut down on the pork barrel and make the institution more effective and save tax paying dollars.

In Case of An Emergency

2004-11-24T10:36:00.000-08:00

In response to the article that Daniel posted, I do not think having an emergency plan for terrorist attacks is a realistic idea. Unlike fires and tornados, there is little if no warning for terrorist attacks. Also, there are so many ways that a terrorist attack could happen. There could be a biological attack or a bombing and there is no way to prepare for every single kind of threat that is possible on the United States. It is not a bad idea to have a general idea of what kinds of things you need to do if there is a terrorist attack, but to come up with a very specific plan of what to do is unreasonable. Imagine if one of the children's parents was in one of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. What kind of terrorist plan could prepare for what a child would do in that kind of situation? What if there were a biological attack on the United States and diseases were to spread throughout the country? Is there any way to have a plan of action if that happens? Realistically, the answer is no.

Think back to the days of elementary school and even through high school. There were a required amount of fire drills and tornado drills to be done every year. Sure, there was a definite plan of action, but how many people actually took it seriously? Most of the time students were goofing around in the hallways or complaining about walking on wet grass to go outside for fire drills. If there were a real fire or tornado, there would be more of a sense of panic and even with the plan, that most students chose to take lightly, there would still be confusion on what to do. How would a terror drill be any different than this? People still wouldn't take it seriously enough to make the plan work in a time of crisis. While having a plan is not a bad idea for the chance of a terror attack, it seems fairly unreasonable and unrealistic.

Emergency Plans

2004-11-23T19:56:00.000-08:00

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=4150

This article talks about how the Department of Homeland Security and the Ad Council have teamed up since February 2003 to fund and support the Ready campaign, an advertising/knowledge awareness plan to get parents to talk to their children about times of emergency. Its success and has been huge, having 58% of Americans already taking at least one step toward preparing for emergencies and spreading the message to over 210 million americans. However, though it seems like a decent idea to begin with, I question what effect it will really have with people. It is good in the sense that it brings about awareness of emergency plans and such for fires or natrual disasters, but I seriously doubt it will be effective in fighting terrorism because you never know what is going to happen next. The broad scope of possible attacks and changing situations makes it impossible for children to react to. Some of the examples they give about children asking questions like “How do we keep in touch if the phones do not work?” “Where should we meet?” “Who will pick us up?” cannot be concretely answered, especially if their parents were caught in the attack. There is just really no way a kid will be able to follow an emergency plan for terrorism, which is a lot different from fires, tornadoes, or flood drills. Some positive aspects the plan brings into households are emergency kits and awareness of who to rely on when your parents are gone. But these things should have already been made clear from standard safety talks and drills. Though personally it does not make much sense to me, it is still a good plan for the general public and the awareness talks can’t hurt anyone.

Turnover in Second Term

2004-11-16T20:40:00.000-08:00

President George W. Bush has just appointed Condoleezza Rice to be the new secretary of state, replacing the recently departed Colin Powell. This change leaves the position of national security advisor to the president vacant. Because this is such an influential position in the government that has a huge affect on the nations safety, I am very interested as to how Stephen Hadley, the presidents choice to replace her, will do.

Although I feel confident that Hadley is more than qualified for the position, I think he will have a difficult time replacing Rice because I do not think that a smarter or tougher individual can be found. She has overcome so much in her life, from racism in the south to poverty, that she has become an extremely tough and determined person that seems to excel in all she does. Furthermore, Rice is arguably the smartest person on President Bush’s staff and her absence will be missed in the Department of Homeland Security.

Stephen Hadley is said to be a very savvy Washington insider that should be able to get the job done. He is expected to continue in the same direction as Rice with the exception of being more behind the scenes. Whereas Rice was very much in the public eye, Hadley is media shy and is not expected to grant as many interviews as his predecessor. People close to Hadley say that he is an extremely gifted multitasker with a good sense of humor. I look forward to seeing just how well he will fill Rice’s shoes in the coming months.

Another position to keep an eye on in the coming weeks is Homeland Security Chief. I have read that Tom Ridge is interested in returning to private life and may not want to continue for the next four years. Ridge is scheduled to meet with the president this week to discuss his future status. Hopefully all the potential turnover will not have a negative impact on the security of the nation.

More on Border Control

2004-11-15T20:39:00.000-08:00

The circulation through the United States-Mexico Border is a potential terrorist transportation route that has been overlooked for too long. If you may not have known, border control was labeled as the primary concern of the month of October. There has recently been a large-scale effort with Mexico to tighten border security and at least double the safety measures that are taken as people pass through the border. I see this as a measure that should have already have been taken, but may not have been due to other priorities.

Tom Ridge and Mexican Interior Secretary Santiago Creel plan to heighten security without slowing the flow of commerce through the border. I find this infeasible considering the time it takes now for each vehicle to be thoroughly inspected. The slowing of more traffic through this point could possibly dissuade some business between the U.S. and Mexico. Though, I do support their efforts to take action and tighten the security at the border.

The border as it stands is too vulnerable and accessible for terrorist. I believe there may already be potentially threatening people in the United States that have used this route to enter our country. Hopefully, these actions taken by law enforcement will also cut back drug trafficking tremendously. The United States stands as being quite susceptible to attack because of its openness at the borders and also its openness to education.

With the tightening of border security, the DHS will also look into education where the government is trying to make college acceptance much stricter for foreign students. This, I do not necessarily agree with. It will be very difficult to say who is or is not allowed to attend an American school. A person who is fully capable of attending an American university and would therefore become an asset to the country has the potential of being denied admittance. This matter should be held with the utmost care to not prevent any competent person from being denied the freedoms of an American education.

Big Changes Coming for the DHS

2004-11-14T07:51:00.000-08:00

Analysis: Homeland Officials set to Leave

After reading this article, I found that if you are new to government agencies and looking for a large salary, a forty-hour work week, and nothing more than a moderately stressful job, the Department of Homeland Security should not be of any interest to you. Apparently, these three distinct job characteristics have been labeled with the careers of the DHS workforce. Behind the scenes, the department is not where it should be, and criticism from Congress only seems to make things worse—scaring off many of its prominent workers. Weary and battered, the Department of Homeland Security will need to look hard for new staff to fulfill the roles of those who have announced intentions to leave, recently.

Tom Ridge is one of those looking to move on with his career. He intends to leave the Cabinet post to pursue another position or return to the private sector. He has one child in college and another one that will be there in just a few years. He seems to use their tuition costs as one initiative to pursue another job. I think his children deserve to have a father that can be around. It is an awful thing to never become close to your family due to a job. Those close to him claim that he may even try to run for the Presidency in 2008. Though, if he is to secure the nomination as a Republican candidate, it would be a wise decision to leave the DHS before another large-scale terrorist attack occurs; that would only ruin the reputation he has built. I see his candidacy as ideal--only second to Colin Powell.

Maybe a change in staff will bring big changes to the department. I think we are all nervous to see any change here because it has never happened before due to the department being so young and most of the primary appointees still remain. Tom Ridge has done a superior job. I hope to see his posterity exceed and build upon his work.

The US Border

2004-11-14T07:04:00.000-08:00

The article "U.S. homeland security secretary meets with Mexican counterpart" talks about the immigration from Mexico to the United States and how the Homeland Security department is taking measures to change the policy that we have. I do agree that it is important to not try to stop immigration completely, mainly because that is an unrealistic goal. It is inevitable, like the article said, that we can stop the immigration from happening. The best thing to do is have tighter regulations on the border.

I think an important thing the Homeland Security department is not thinking about is the Canadian border. It is the longest open border between two countries. Every year we get hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Canada. The only strong border control is at major crossing points, such as the Detroit/Windsor border. It would be very easy for someone who is a threat to our country to cross into the United States through North Dakota and never get noticed by the government.

The Homeland Security needs to look at all of our borders, not just the Mexico one. I think equal time should be spent on regulating immigration on all bordering countries. There is imminent threat from both so both should be closely monitored. They are starting with the right idea with instead of stopping immigration, they are regulating it, but it is important to regulate it everywhere, not just select places.

Immigration

2004-11-11T02:42:00.000-08:00

After reading the immigration article, now more than ever do I think that this is an important issue. With so many people coming across the borders, there has got to be a way to control either their presence once they enter the country or prevent them from ever entering. THe way the article presents it, Mexico could be a gateway for anyone to enter North American and then specifically the United States through Mexico. With a wide open gate to the country like this, all the efforts on airport security and other methods along that line become useless.

There are several ways to protect the border. One, probably not very effective and very radical would be to erect a physical barrier right along the entire border that would prevent people from corssing.

Another method I think would be helpful in any case is the removal of all non citizens who are given authorization to be living in America. Have checks at places like where you are employed, where you get money, anywhere. If you make it hard enough for someone to be an illegal citizen, eventually they will stop coming. I see this method being rather easy--a database could be compiled using existing databases and a crosscheck is all that is neccessary to implement this design.

Immigration and Mexico

2004-11-10T23:34:00.000-08:00

I was pleased after reading this article because it seems as if the department of homeland security is making progress in the area of border patrol. Although immigration is still under the jurisdiction of two separate departments, it seems as if the DHS is cleaning the process up so that it runs more smoothly in the future. I think that Bush’s proposal for temporary work visas is an interesting one. I like the idea that they must prove that they have a job in order to get one. Furthermore, I believe that this could potentially cut reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the US and spur the influx of new illegal aliens because they will now have a way to legally cross the border. I can see this potentially being a good thing for both Mexico and the US if it is able to make it through congress.

On another note, I cannot believe what the Mexican Foreign Secretary said. How could he possibly think that we need to worry about keeping criminals out of the country instead of Mexicans? If we just open up the border so that anyone from Mexico that gets a hankering to come over is able to then we are leaving ourselves vulnerable for terrorists to cross the border as well. I agree with Daniel, if Mexico is really our ally maybe they should help us out a little by regulating their own people. Maybe they could even try to improve their economic status so people aren’t trying to leave the country and come to ours.

Immigration Policy

2004-11-09T02:31:00.000-08:00

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/11/08/international1723EST6320.DTL
Mexico’s foreign Secretary seems to be taking advantage of the U.S., saying how it is wasting time and money on immigration that cannot be stopped anyways and only further separates mexican families that have immigrated. Though the U.S. may not be able to stop the immigration, they still need to regulate. Mexico should concentrate more on improving its own country income per capita and state of living instead of trying to press the U.S. to open borders. The Department of Homeland Security and the INS both have jurisdiction over border control and a lot of that is wastes time and money with the overlap and red tape. With a bit reforming, both departments could do a much better job regulating immigration, not stopping it. Bush’s proposal that got stalled called to allow mexicans to gain temporary working visas. Congress did not approve of the idea and Colin Powell is trying to work out a better situation for immigration policy. The foreign secretary of mexico comes off in a negative manner, just trying to press his own agenda with no respect to the U.S. border.

So far, Tom Ridge, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, is trying to work out a plausible situation with Colin Powell, Bush, and Mexico to protect our borders. One of the biggest weakness the U.S. faces from terror is from open borders. Though it is impossible to completely control the border or check all imported goods, intelligence and cross government agenices should improve their communication and efficency to cut costs and terror down.

Art and Homeland

2004-11-07T16:00:00.000-08:00

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=086b553cde718b7d1eb2a08a7b4f4dc4&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVA&_md5=78f15d9a3580c2b0c396e5665a451515

I found this article to be a new approach to think about Homeland security. It first discusses the Native Americans and poses questions about what the security is and who it is making secure. I found this to be interesting because this is really the Indians homeland and they are not secure because they have been forced onto reservations and therefore are not secure on their homeland. It shows that many people have different ideas of what Homeland Security actually means to different people and how that phrase is becoming tired and worn out.

The article then discusses an Art show called Home, Land, Security: Exploring Displacement. By breaking up the phrase with commas, it brings an entire new outlook to the issue of homeland security. Different artists sculpted and painted their representation of home, land, security. By doing this it shows how people of different backgrounds view this issue in different ways. I think this is a unique approach to an issue that has been tired out through traditional discussions. It gives a completely new way to look at the topic and maybe will inspire new ideas of how our nation can improve homeland security for everyone.

By showing the issues in the form of art work, it keeps the issues nonpartison and allows people to look at it not as a democrat or republican, but just as a citizen of America. It levels out the playing field by allowing everyone to see things without a preconceived notion of what they are going to believe about the issue.

ICE

2004-11-03T20:59:00.000-08:00

Mintz’s article presents a common theme among all government agencies these days with the recession, attack of terror, and budget cuts. In fact, most agencies are underfunded and increased spending has led to an even bigger deficit. Now whether or not that deficit is good or bad is another question. But the problem with the cut backs are even deeper than the article assumes. I would have liked it to discuss the issue about state departments of Homeland Security, the branches that go down and are controlled by state. Because the inherent problem lies where the states cannot spend more. They have to keep a balanced budget unlike the federal government which can go into a deficit and debt. The state branches of the homeland security department will feel a huge underfunding and be hit the worse, limiting performance. However, I think that the Homeland Security department can work it out as long as they use their money wisely and redistribute it to places that need it more. The classic example is that of Alaska wasting two million on nothing because they are not a target like New York. By spending money wisely and focusing on key areas I believe the DHS can be effective in fighting terrorists.

On the other hand, the department does need to work out its issues with the CIS and INS. It is interesting that the DHS handles issues with immigration, something I thought would be specifically concerned by the INS. But with all the red tape and buerracracy, it is very understandable. These are the areas that congressmen need to look at as well as perhaps funding increases to make the department more effective and cost efficient.

Terror alerts

2004-11-02T15:35:00.000-08:00

After reading the article "Ridge says no change to terror threat level despite warning about new bin Laden tape", I found it absurd that more actions were not taken after the Bin Laden tape surfaced. It was a direct threat to Americans, but yet the terror rating did not change. Officials even said that it could be a precurser to an attack on America, and still not many measures were taken to ensure nothing would happen in the US. Was it not the same kind of overlooking that caused us to not prevent the attacks on 9/11? After such an attack, one would think that the government would take more drastic measures so that the same kind of incident would not happen again.

I do understand that because of the timing of the video, the officials did not want to cause panic in the American public and by effect, low voter turnout. In a sense, they had the right idea by not making a huge deal publically about the inherent thread to our country, but it seemed to the public that they completely dismissed it. Maybe a smarter idea would have been to tell the public there was a threat, but that the government has gone through vigorous security measures to make sure that we will not have another attack such as the one from 9/11.

The government can not tell the American public everything they know and everything they are doing to protect our borders. It is important to have trust in the government, but when they reveal such little information or give us false information, it makes it harder to trust that the government is doing what is in our best interest. They need to find a happy medium between telling the public everything and giving the public false information.

Problems In the ICE

2004-10-30T22:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12489-2004Oct30.html

After reading the article “Cutbacks Threaten Work of Homeland Security Unit,” I was not only surprised but I was also baffled by how some of these problems could occur. I was particularly troubled by the huge amount in which the ICE is expected to go over budget, the fighting among the three departments, and the variety of activities the ICE is expected to monitor.

The ICE has a budget of 3.8 billion dollars and is expected to come up 500 million dollars short. How does that happen? That is almost 15% over budget which can mean only one of two things. Either the ICE was severely under funded or the ICE is spending money very irresponsibly. Both of these scenarios pose enormous problems for the department of homeland security. If they are under funded then that would mean that our ports are not nearly as safe as they should be, thereby making us venerable to another terrorist attack and if they are irresponsibly spending the money allocated to them then we are in desperate need of a leadership change within the ICE.

Secondly, I find it hard to imagine how the three different organizations within the department of homeland security are fighting over money. They are part of the SAME organization. Is there no leadership that binds the three groups together? Is there no one that can settle the dispute by sending the money where it needs to be? Is our political system so screwed up that groups within the same organization cannot figure out who is supposed to get what money?

Finally, I found it alarming that the ICE is monitoring such a wide variety of activities. Should the group responsible for checking our ports for terrorist threats also be responsible for investigating child pornographers? Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me that these are two very different threats and should be handled by separate organizations. I don’t want a terrorist threat to slip through the cracks because the ICE was busying chasing down a child pornographer. Both things need to be handled but they shouldn’t be handled together.

After reading several articles on the department of homeland security, I have been alarmed to discover the many problems it is having. I realize that it is a fairly new bureaucracy and they are still working out the kinks but some of these problems are ridiculous. I hope that in the next four years homeland security is revamped and put on the right track.

Are we safe on Election Day?

2004-10-30T17:48:00.000-07:00

Ridge says no change to terror threat level despite warning about new bin Laden tape (Lexis-Nexis)

With one of the more “nail-biting” elections of American history on the verge of conclusion this Tuesday, should I be a little nervous as to whether or not any terrorist organization has any tricks up their sleeve? As you may or may not know, this weekend marks the release of a new “Osama tape” dropped off at an Al-Jazeera television station in the capitol of Pakistan. In this tape, Osama bin Laden acknowledges his orders for the attacks on our nation for the first time since 9/11. He does not make any reference to a pending attack this coming week. The surfacing of the tape does come at an appropriate time to intimidate American voters though.

The fact that Tom Ridge, Homeland Security Secretary, appeared unalarmed when questioned about the tape does not surprise me. Despite the intelligence he has access to, Ridge could be well aware of a full-fledged attack, but be forced to maintain his composer to keep the confidence of voters. This makes me uneasy to think that we could be in for quite a surprise this week, but be unaware of it. I instill a great deal of my trust in the DHS, but in some cases, I believe we have been let down by officials being too concerned with political stances rather than doing their job as our leaders. I hope Ridge is doing his job by as he remained so passive during Friday’s questions.

Following that, I want to bring up our nations security levels. After remaining at code “yellow” for the majority of the year, it seems that we should be raised to the orange awareness level for Tuesday’s elections. Though, after being questioned, Ridge chose to remain at the yellow level maybe in part to keep Americans unalarmed or maybe because he realizes America doesn’t pay attention to the warning levels anyways. We could be a “guarded”-blue level on day and not ever change our routine if the next day it were raised to a “high-alert” yellow. This is partly our faults as citizens for taking our security for granted.

Recently, the Bush administration and Tom Ridge have been alerting Americans that another terrorist attack is highly likely. I am still baffled as to why Ridge does not believe that this attack could not occur within the next few days. Polls on Tuesday will be hectic, and I doubt security will be on the minds of many of those that step into the booths. Then again, after reading this article on possible threats, I must still say I am as confident as Tom Ridge that we will remain safe on election day.

Problems and Goals of the DHS

2004-10-29T01:09:00.000-07:00

http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=e05c6138e4003d9fc1c01b457243ff3c&_docnum=9&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkVA&_md5=2b292e16dc3775fafa25fabf7f7d9fdf

This is an interesting article describing the current state and future visions of the Department of Homeland Security. One interesting aspect of the article is how it describes Homeland Security as still being relativity new and experiencing growing pains. That thought simply slipped my mind and probably most others, as we expect this Department to somehow keep us safe and do an outstanding job. Only going into its second year, while compared to many of the other Departments which have been around for hundreds of years, it is ridiculous to expect the Homeland Security system to be extremely efficient or effective yet. The article illustrates how the 22 separate agencies still are struggling to get on the same page, and that the fragmentation of legislation funds for Homeland Security systems outside of the DHS make marketing, operating, and targeting extremely difficult. However, there is hope, as Kessner goes on to describe the visions the DHS has for the future. They are thinking about integrating small business support and international companies to help support and fuse together all the technologies for better development. Currently, there is a major problem with funding, as it is ambiguous and most of the time ends up being pushed down to state and local levels. Also, current laws prohibit large foreign companies like Israel Aircraft Industries to join and help the DHS. By pushing in this direction of fused technology and integrating homeland security operatives in private and local sectors as a standard is the key for the success of homeland security. I think that is true for the most part, since it impossible to stay on the offense and impossible to absolutely secure all open ports and major infrastructures in the U.S. The best hope is to start incorporating measures and developing/combining new technologies to combat any possible threats posed in the future.

High Quantity, Low Quality

2004-10-26T10:11:00.000-07:00

In the article "Kerry's Plan," the need for higher quality spending for the Department of Homeland Security was pointed out. It showed that some people, mainly Democrats, wanted the budget for this department to be increased. It seems as if their thinking is that the more money this department has, the better it will be able to perform. This may be the case if they were able to prove that they are already using all of the funds allocated to them for only homeland security measures. This is not the case. There is a lot of extra money not being used, and adding more money will just go to more projects for certain states that don't have anything to do with security. It is a disturbing fact that out of the 10 places that were receiving the highest amount of money, only one of these was top 10 for the terror risk. I don't think it is a crazy idea that the high terror risks should get more money from the department.

The members of congress are using this money to please their constituents and people who helped them get into office. They are using this money more as pork than anything else. It is pretty much being used to give reward to the people who helped them to their current position. By simply adding more money to the department without a specific plan on how to spend this money, more and more of it will be going to pork instead of being used for its intended purpose. This department needs to decide appropriate ways for the funds to be spent so they can only be spent in that way, which will reduce on the amount that is used for pork and to reward certain congressional constituants.

CSM Article

2004-10-23T19:05:00.000-07:00

I was very disturbed by many of the surprising statistics given in the CSM article about appropriation of funds for homeland security. I felt like this article was very affective in raising questions about the wide use of pork barreling in congress by explaining to the reader exactly what is wrong with the status quo through several examples and simple logic.

The article begins with an instance in which Alaska had two million dollars left over and wanted to use the money to buy a jet. Congress said no but then offered several other ways in which the money could be spent. The fist problem with this situation is that Alaska had two million dollars left over and had no idea what to do with it. The article goes on to explain that the reason states that don’t really need it get so much money is because their representatives in congress are unable to look past their own districts and see the bigger security problems in the country. The second problem with this situation is that instead of reallocating the extra two million dollars to a state that actually need extra money, such as New York; they just offered ideas in which Alaska could spend it. The article then went on to strengthen its argument by its effective use of statistics. The article showed that rural states such as Wyoming got a much larger amount of money per capita then more populated states such as Pennsylvania. The article also stated that even congress saw the problem and attempted to fix it by allocating more funds to places that were at higher risk of an attack, but the list quickly grew from seven cities to fifty-one due to pork barreling.

This article brought up a very important problem that is inherently wrong with the way our congress functions. It was very effective in showing the shortcomings of the current homeland security initiative and the many problems that these shortcomings create. This article has made me take a much closer look at the issues of homeland security and pork barreling.

Quality of Spending

2004-10-23T13:19:00.000-07:00

The article that Grant posted brings a very interesting point to light: much of our government spending, especially that concerning homeland security, is wasteful and ineffective. The best thing a president could do for the department of homeland security would be to modify the way funds are allocated and spent. There are many ways that 30 billion dollars or more could be spent to have a great impact on the defense of our nation instead of where the money currently goes.

If I may digress for a moment from our overarching topic of homeland security, this point seems to be valid for almost all types of government spending. If the government focused on cleaning up its messy fiscal plans for all the various programs, I am quite sure lots of money could be found to either reallocate into other programs, or to fund currently failing programs.

In either case, it is obvious that the president, while putting plenty of money into the program to get it off of its feet, has neglected where is large amount of funds are going, and thus has rendered it less effective than it could be at its full realized potential.

Another Huge Misuse of Funds?

2004-10-23T10:44:00.000-07:00

In conjunction with “Carter’s Article,” I have found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at present, has been given entirely too much funding. Better yet, the DHS has not put the enormous amount of money it receives to good use. The 2005 homeland security bill consists of an outrageous $33 billion—after the Democrats of the House of Representatives motioned to tack another $20 billion on the bill. Veronique de Rugy pointed out in her “What’s Kerry’s plan?” article that Congress seems to be much more worried about the quality of spending instead of the quality of spending.
Being strongly supportive of providing sufficient funds for security myself, I have to believe de Rugy is right about America’s misallocations of DHS funds. After reading an article in the Associated Press by Gary D. Robertson, I realize that many states have not instituted appropriate planning policies for the money they receive. For instance, North Carolina has only used a mere 30% of its funds over the past five years due to the “massive coordination required to develop plans for its use.” There should not have to be a surplus of money in a state that requires the need of all the funds it receives! Once again, Congress has not provided an efficient plan.
Another issue seems to be how the money is spent. According to de Rugy, the District of Columbia used its first wave of funds on providing new leather jackets for its police officers. She is clear to also say that “among the top 10 money-receiving states, only the District of Columbia also appears on a list of the top 10 most at-risk places.” I know that since the Department of Homeland Security is relatively new to government, there will be some loop-holes in its spending policies, but Congress will need to provide proficient guidelines as to what state funding shall be used for. I never realized there was such a big playing field when it came to allocating funds for state security, but then again, politics is a dirty game.

Carters Article

2004-10-21T16:18:00.000-07:00

I think the CSM's (Christian Science Monitor's) article on homeland security points out two specific flaws with the U.S. government: a watered-down Congress that cannot pass any effective bills in fear of alienating people, and congressmen driven to add pork to legislation to improve their constituency and get reelected. Now though this might be good for individual states like Alaska, it really defeats the purpose of many bills and institutions, especially homeland security, where key areas like New York, California, Washington D.C., and the CDC in Georgia deserve a lot more attention and money. The article points out exactly how ridiculous the legislative process has gotten when rural states like Wyoming is receiving seven times that of Pennsylvania, just because their Congress people played the game of politics better.

Another disheartening aspect of this article is that it lowers one’s efficacy. Even if somebody had a positive reflection of the United States government and thought they could make a difference, this whole mess in Congress shows how impossible it is to get things done right. Not only that, but a bill designed to make citizens safer, a bipartisan agreement, has been warped to benefit states in lesser need. Additionally, I think it is horrible that the DHS would actually entertain other options for Alaska’s 2 million dollars, instead of just redistribute it to New York where there is a clear need. Senators and House Representatives should be ashamed that they are taking federal funding away from key states prone to attack and should willingly give up the money and the attempt to make pork barrel legislation out of everything.

Homeland Security Pork

2004-10-19T14:29:00.000-07:00

In the article "Security Spending Over a Barrel" there are many good points mentioned. One of these is the fact that states with low risk of terrorism are getting the same or higher funds than those states which are at a high risk. These states do not know what they should do with their allocated funds. I think a solution to this would be similar to funded mandates. The government gives strict guidelines or direct orders on what the money is to be spent on, and provides the necessary funds to accomplish the goals. This would cut down on states like Alaska wanting to buy a jet with the money, as mentioned in the article.

The funding from the Homeland Security should not be used as mere pork. Other pork causes for shrimp research in landlocked states, museums and monuments to former presidents from certain states and the like. The security of our nation should not be put along the same lines as these outrageous expenditures. Members of congress do have a responsibility to their constituency, but they should not fulfill this responsibility by giving unnecessary funds to their state. It seems as if there needs to be a way the government determines what states get how much money based on terror threat, for instance, the states on the coast or near an international border should get more money because there is a higher risk for terror than states that are in the center of the United States. The spending needs more rules to be effective at all.

DHS Homepage

2004-10-14T11:52:00.000-07:00

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/

Links?

2004-10-14T07:52:00.000-07:00

I guess we should post our prospective links and stuff somewhere--I found this article that was posted today, it looks like a solid article, and maybe could be one of our basic focus points--Homeland security spending. Here it is

After reading this article, I must say things look pretty grim for the future of this department. If it is so hard to pass legislature that would help out our country, then even the smallest battles will turn into huge, drawn out affairs, severely crippling the effectiveness of our homeland security department.

Perhaps a solution to this problem would be to grant some small measures of authority to the department of Homeland security that might allow them to place regulations and such, letting them increase security while not having important plans bogged down in the senate.

Welcome

2004-10-14T07:47:00.000-07:00

Welcome to our blog about homeland security.