The GAO Reminds Us Why The Republicans Can't Be Trusted to Defend America

Are you safer today than you were eight years ago?

When the Government Accountability Office (GAO) decides to look at anything controlled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), you might as well sit back and get out a few highlighters, because what you're going to get is enough to fill as many blog posts as you want to try to do in one day.

In testing ports of entry, undercover investigators carried counterfeit drivers' licenses, birth certificates, employee identification cards, and other documents, presented themselves at ports of entry and sought admittance to the United States dozens of times. They arrived in rental cars, on foot, by boat, and by airplane.

Oh, crap!

They attempted to enter in four states on the northern border (Washington, New York, Michigan, and Idaho), three states on the southern border (California, Arizona, and Texas), and two other states requiring international air travel (Florida and Virginia). In nearly every case, government inspectors accepted oral assertions and counterfeit identification provided by GAO investigators as proof of U.S. citizenship and allowed them to enter the country.

Double crap!

In total, undercover investigators made 42 crossings with a 93 percent success rate. On several occasions, while entering by foot from Mexico and by boat from Canada, investigators were not even asked to show identification. For example, at one border crossing in Texas in 2006, an undercover investigator attempted to show a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer his counterfeit driver's license, but the officer said, "That's fine, you can go" without looking at it.

Oh noes!

Here's a classic picture, one that should be hung on the wall of every wingnut in America:


What could possibly be in that duffel bag? A thermonuclear device? Dirty laundry? A bag of cash for someone who wants to build an Embassy in a Middle Eastern country?

I don't have the embed link, but here's the GAO video of these activities:

The GAO chronicles the absolute farce that is our border security. While the wingnuts go on Fox News and screech about a missile that Iran doesn't have that can carry a nuclear weapon Iran doesn't have, the people who run this administration have installed the most inept people in American History as leaders of the worst idea in American history--the Department of Homeland Security.

The next President should immediately disband and deactivate and disperse the Department of Homeland Security. DHS is a an unmitigated failure and a disgrace:

In contrast to our observations on the northern border, our investigators observed a large law enforcement and Army National Guard presence near a state road on the southern border, including unmanned aerial vehicles. On October 17, 2006, two of our investigators left a main U.S. route about a quarter mile from a U.S.–Mexico port of entry. Traveling on a dirt road that parallels the border, our investigators used a GPS system to get as close to the border as possible. Our investigators passed U.S. Border Patrol agents and U.S. Army National Guard units. In addition, our investigators spotted unmanned aerial vehicles and a helicopter flying parallel to the border. At the point where the dirt road ran closest to the U.S.–Mexico border, our investigators spotted additional U.S. Border Patrol vehicles parked in a covered position. About three-fourths of a mile from these vehicles, our investigators pulled off the road. One investigator exited the vehicle and proceeded on foot through several gulches and gullies toward the Mexican border. His intent was to find out whether he would be questioned by law enforcement agents about his activities. He returned to the vehicle after 15 minutes, at which time our investigators returned to the main road. Our investigators did not observe any public traffic on this road for the 1 hour that they were in the area, but none of the law enforcement units attempted to stop our investigators and find out what they were doing. According to CBP, because our investigators did not approach from the direction of Mexico, there would be no expectation for law enforcement units to question these activities.

The GAO also did this:

Took photographs of over half a dozen locations where state roads ended at the U.S.–Canada border

They noted that:

• No visible law enforcement response despite suspicious activity
• No observable electronic monitoring equipment
• CBP stated that our activities would not be grounds for a formal investigation

Then they:
Simulated the cross-border movement of radioactive materials or other contraband into the United States from Canada
And they noted that there was:

• No visible law enforcement response
• No observable electronic monitoring equipment

GAO's investigators also:
Simulated the cross-border movement of radioactive materials or other contraband into the United States from Canada
And recorded that:

• Some surveillance cameras and law enforcement presence noted along the road
• Investigators crossed the border into the United States in a spot that appeared to be unmanned and unmonitored, then returned to Canada

Here's a little more information about that "unmanned" border crossing station:

We also identified several ports of entry with posted daytime hours in one state on the northern border. During the daytime these ports of entry are staffed by CBP officers. During the night, CBP told us that it relies on surveillance systems to monitor, respond to, and attempt to interdict illegal border crossing activity. For example, on November 14, 2006, at about 11:00 p.m., our investigators arrived on the U.S. side of one port of entry that had closed for the night. Investigators observed that surveillance equipment was in operation but that the only visible preventive measure to stop an individual from entering the United States was a barrier across the road that could be driven around. CBP provided us with records that confirmed our observations about the barrier at this port of entry, indicating that on one occasion a cross-border violator drove around this type of barrier to illegally enter the United States. Although the violator was later caught by state law enforcement officers and arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol, we were concerned that these ports of entry were unmanned overnight.

So what we have, after seven and a half years of the Bush Administration being warned repeatedly to do something, is border security on the honor system.

We have, in effect, the Otis the Drunk rule as our policy of defending America:



Remember, terrorists--Andy leaves the jail unlocked and he leaves the key to your cell hanging on the wall. Lock yourself in for the night and sleep it off.

Definitely Not the Right Answer

Uh...the POINT of this post was to highlight how ridiculous it is to
listen to Chuck Norris advocate SHOOTING illegal immigrants. You, umm...got that didn't you?

Chuck Norris, noted for his grasp of public policy and his fascinating pants, weighs in on this whole illegal immigration thing...

Exacerbating the security crisis is the fact that there continues to be a shortage of both Border Patrol and other safety government officials. The Homeland Security Department is still trying to fill last year's 138 vacancies in high-level jobs – an employment crisis that it calls "a critical homeland security issue that demands immediate attention."

Another good reason to throw the incompetent Bush administration out on its ear. Unemployment is skyrocketing, but the US government can't find anyone who wants to work for it. We've shown you how many jobs in the Washington DC area alone are open and that pay more than a $100,000 a year--it's a disgrace.

Unfortunately, illegal transport of immigrants, terrorists and other contraband is only going to worsen, especially with the possible creation of a North American Union (with Canada and Mexico) and the so-called NAFTA Superhighways. Unless of course we stop it! (How is it that we can militarily overthrow a government like Iraq, yet we can't militarily keep illegalities from crossing our borders?) As Mike Huckabee still says, "If the government can't track illegals, then let's outsource the job to UPS or Fed-Ex."

You mean the "NAFTA Superhighway" that actually doesn't exist, except in the imagination of wingnuts everywhere? You mean the war where 20,000 irregular insurgents have a 140,000 man and woman army pinned down--how's that going, by the way? It's not a great analogy to use the fiasco of Iraq to show how good of a job we could do by militarizing our southern border. I seem to recall that the last time someone thought that was a good idea, some Marines shot an 18 year-old goat shepherd and the whole thing had to be discontinued. And you've gotta love the wingnut obsession with outsourcing. That job you thought you were going to retire from? Someone in India, Mexico or the Marianas Islands has it now, and they're working for pennies on the dollar.

If these solutions don't stop the tides of illegal flow in and out of our borders, a friend of mine has a Texas-tough alternative and answer to replace the government's virtual fence failure. In fact, he says, we don't need a security fence at all. All we need to do is to post signs and position manned trucks at key points, just like our government does at Area 51, the top secret military airfield in remote central Nevada, around which there are no fences or walls. There is never a breach or unwanted border crossing there, at least that we hear about! And why? Because the boundary sign reads and is never questioned, "Warning: Use of deadly force authorized."

The last refuge of a pussy is to shoot people when there's a problem. Nothing is solved from shooting people to get what you want. It's not going to stop immigration. It's going to cause a lot of unnecessary death and destruction. In short, you can spot the pussy in the crowd when he draws his gun before there's a need to draw a gun. Yes, Chuck Norris is just a big, uninformed pussy who can't think for himself and probably didn't even bother writing his own column. I think he's trying to revitalize his reinforced crotch pants:



Stick with the cheesy products, Chuck.

Some folks read Stephen King - I read GAO reports and get the same effect

Wanna know what scares the hell out of me?

It isn’t a few thousand bearded whack-jobs frothing with fundamentalist fervor, sporting a gigantic chip on their collective shoulder and entertaining delusions of taking over the world that are slightly less likely to be realized than the grand schemes of Pinky & the Brain.

No, what scares me is the pure, unadulterated incompetence at the highest levels of our kleptocracy.

In the last week, the GAO issued three reports on border security, terrorist screening, and aviation security that, read individually, are each cause for consternation. But read them together and synthesize the information, and you might be sorely tempted to crawl under the bed with a security blanket and a stash of Xanax until 1/20/2009.

Border Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the governmental agency responsible for keeping terrorists and other inadmissibles out of the United States. They are charged with fulfilling this mission while simultaneously facilitating the cross-border traffic of millions of international travelers every year. The CBP conducts this mission at 326 ports of entry (international airports, harbors, border crossings) throughout the United States. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, nearly a quarter million ineligible individuals were interdicted by CBP and turned away, but the agency estimates that several thousand more were admitted to the country through our ports of entry.

Weaknesses that compromise border security include not verifying the nationality and admissibility of individuals. This failure of the system is the most acute at land crossings. When the GAO did spot checks, they found some checkpoints entirely unmanned. (For contrast: The state of Kansas is more vigilant about their turnpikes and that five dollar fee to travel from Bonner Springs to Wichita. I have never seen a turnpike entry point completely unmanned. Have you? Didn't think so.)

The CBP has been somewhat successful in identifying certain undesirables and inadmissible aliens, but the system is compromised by the vulnerabilities that let several thousand inadmissibles slip in.

Most of the problems highlighted by the GAO can be traced to a single problem: understaffing. Staffing shortfalls directly affect the ability of the CBP to carry out the anti-terror aspect of their mission. Progress has been made in the training of new officers, but no metric exists to measure the extent to which officers on the job receive additional training and exhibit proficiency in requisite skills. Officer attrition has further impaired the ability of the CBP to maintain budgeted staffing levels, and efforts are underway to curb the loss of seasoned officers opting to retire at relatively young ages.

Terrorist Watch List Screening

In the shock and horror of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 the FBI was charged with compiling a terrorist watch list to keep tabs on known terrorists and individuals who were suspected of ties to terrorism after “standards of reasonableness” were applied to nominated individuals. The FBI conducts this work through the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), which submits records from the watch list to screening entities, such as the CPB, law enforcement agencies, etc.

In the intervening time since the watch list was initiated, it has mushroomed to include records on over three-quarters of a million individuals. The list has led to approximately 53,000 positive matches. These matches have led to arrests, denial of entry into the U.S., but most often questioning and release. In a disturbing revelation, the GAO found that some of these positive matches occurred after-the-fact. Individuals positively identified and confirmed to be inadmissible to the United States had already boarded and flown on aircraft, or even been admitted to the country, and perhaps become untraceable.

The TSC sends updates daily to the various screening agencies, but in many instances entire records are not sent, partly because screening against certain segments of the reports might not be integral to the mission of respective agencies. The resulting “cafeteria updates” are often incomplete, inadequate or even missed entirely. In other instances, software incompatibility hinders the ability of some agencies to receive adequate updates of information.

Although the GAO found that some progress has been made in the promotion of effective screening procedures, both in the federal sector and the private/critical infrastructure sector, many potentially effective screening opportunities remain untapped. This situation is perpetuated because the government lacks a current strategy and implementation protocol for optimizing the terrorist watch list.

In addition to the lack of formal protocol, clear lines of authority, accountability and responsibility are missing.

Aviation Security

If you aren't ill at ease yet, keep reading. Aviation security, it seems, is an oxymoron. The GAO conducted spot-checks of United States airports, and successfully smuggled bomb-making components and detonation devices aboard aircraft.

After the thwarted attempt in Britain to make bombs from hydrogen peroxide, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) made substantial modifications to the passenger screening process. Aimed at closing gaps in security that the alleged plot revealed, TSA agents set about confiscating perfumes and shampoos and sippy-cups and toothpaste from hapless travelers as they passed through security checkpoints at the airport.

After the new protocols were in place, a request was made for the GAO to test the system. To do this, the GAO attemptedc to:

1. Obtain the instructions and components needed to create devices that a terrorist might use to cause severe damage to an airplane and threaten the safety of passengers and
2. Test whether GAO investigators could pass through airport security checkpoints undetected with all the components needed to create the devices.

The investigators were able to successfully pass through screening checkpoints with bomb-making components and, on one occasion, an improvised incendiary device (IID), concealed in their carry-on luggage or on their persons. All of the component parts, as well as the items used to conceal them are commercially available.

In conducting the test, the GAO investigators used publicly available information, and determined that two types of device could be used to commit acts of terror aboard aircraft. The first was a two-component IED, comprised of a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator. In this scenario, the detonator could be used as an explosive device in it's own right, or used to greater effect in concert with a volatile liquid. The second device was an IID that could be created by combining readily-accessible products (one of which is a liquid) that are banned from carry-on luggage. All total, the investigators spent less than $150 to purchase the components of their improvised weapons. Prior to testing the security apparatus, the components were tested for efficacy at a national lab in the summer of 2007. Prior tests had been conducted in early 2006, in conjunction with an unnamed law enforcement agency from somewhere in greater metropolitan D.C. These test clearly demonstrated that a terrorist aboard an airplane with the components in question could wreak havoc and endanger the safety of all aboard.

After the volatility of the components had been adequately established, the investigators set about devising concealment schemes, keeping in mind the prohibitions on liquids and other banned items. And two GAO investigators demonstrated the weaknesses of the security screening process in American airports by smuggling the components for multiple explosive devices and one incendiary devise through security and aboard commercial airliners, without being challenged by TSA officers.

Most of the time, the officers seemed to follow protocol and procedure, and employed technology in an appropriate manner, however, GAO was able to uncover weaknesses in the screening process and expose other vulnerabilities as a result of the exercise. Case in point: While officers generally followed the guidelines and enforced TSA policies, the investigators were able to exploit weaknesses in the TSA's own policies to get liquids through checkpoints. the investigators were able to exploit the weaknesses by studying public information and identifying the procedural weaknesses in the policies. (Details of a sensitive nature or that could otherwise be exploited by those intending to inflict harm were omitted from the report released to the public.)

GAO has submitted two briefings to the TSA in an effort to help the agency take corrective action, and suggested several actions that TSA should consider implementing in an effort to improve the passenger screening program. A system-wide review is underway, and the GAO is expected to issue a comprehensive public report, complete with recommendations for TSA early next year.

***************

As I said at the beginning of this post, any one of these reports would be cause for consternation and concern. But read them together and the picture that emerges is downright maddening. Not only are we not keeping proper tabs on terrorists and suspected terrorists, but our borders are as secure as your average sieve is watertight, and the GAO sent investigators into the field who were able to smuggle bombs-making components past TSA officers and aboard commercial aircraft.