The Generalist....

It wasn't to long ago that a multitiude of agencies came crashing together, with quite abit less than a plan. In one area, a few agencies came together and the goal was to produce one face at the border, a concept that I support. In the confusion, the myth of a super officer able to handle any and all situations was conceived, .... a generalist.

Spending many years in the private sector taught me quite a bit, including this gem. If you put your people in the area in which they are experts and you cover all areas with these experts, you are damn likely to produce a fine product or service. Your people will be happier, your customers will be happier, and in the case of the merged agencies, the bad guys will suffer. Every large successful organization relies on experts, that is what makes them successful.

The intent of the merger was not to produce a generalist. It was to put one face at the border, integrating the experts in the various agencies under one management structure that could be held accountable. In doing so, it would provide the nation with a superior level of performance in the areas of national security, economic facilitation, and the flow of people in and out of the country.

I have high hopes that this will be the end result of a good idea that has yet to take shape.

Random Threat Assessment....

Random threat assessment seems like a contradiction in terms, and it is. There are random examinations conducted with no level of suspicion and there are those examinations that are based on threat assessment. On the many occasions that I have flown recently, even when in status, I have been asked to remove my footwear, undo my belt and roll down the waistline of my pants. I have been pat-down and had magnetomic wands shoved, well you know where. I have seen women touched inappropriately with hands and wands and of course seen cuticle scissors seized (with no due process or even a receipt) while Swiss army knives proceed. Aside from the fact that there has not been a revolt over TSA's methods (which I find amazing), what is incredible is that the agency thinks that it makes it all better by saying it was just a random exam.

When I am told that the exam was entirely random, what they are really saying is that they have no idea what they are doing, they are guessing. Today, we will exam everyone with red shirts, oh wait, we can't do that, it isn't random. We really don't know who the bad guys are so we will stick a wand up granny's skirt, just in case. Ineptitude at it best.

When a law enforcement agency stops somebody, it should be based on a reason, for some reason the words "Terry Stop", come to mind. TSA should have the integrity, as stated in their mission statement, to make stops for a reason. Based on a threat assessment, where ever that threat assessment derives. It might be behavioral analysis as is utilized by other law enforcement agencies here and abroad. It could be based on intelligence derived from the many agencies now working together to fight terrorism. It could be based on previous enforcement actions taken by the agency, but it should be based on something. Can you imagine if every one coming across the borders was subjected to this kind of treatment, the economy would stop and the lawyers would have a field day. TSA has to have the courage to base their examination on threat assessment, be able to articulate the suspicion, and be able to live with their assessments. If they lack this resolve, they will never garner any respect, nor will they safeguard the traveling public.

Criminals and Enemy Combatants.....

As the war on terrorism has been ongoing for over three years from the American perspective (I use the American perspective because it has been going on for a long time, we just didn't take it seriously as a nation until 9/11), one of the hardest concepts for Americans to grasp is the difference between criminals and enemy combatants. I will save the difference between enemy soldiers and enemy combatants for later. Many people in this country feel that those affiliated with Al Qaida and 9/11 should be arrested in the battlefield, read their Miranda warning, tried by their peers and have the appellate courts available to them. Why, because that is what we do with criminals and those who perpetrated the events of 9/11 and their affiliates are criminals right?

Were the pilots of the Japanese planes on 12/7/41 at Pearl Harbor criminals? At the time the US was not at war with Japan, they perpetrated an unprovoked and premeditated attack. Surely, they must be criminals. Most of the same people, would probably disagree. Why, because they wore uniforms and flew under the flag of a nation? Is this the distinction?

The magnificent nineteen, as they have been described by some in the fundamental Islamic world, were as much soldiers as the Japanese pilots. They trained like soldiers, they had a chain of command, they called themselves soldiers, and they were at war with the US as proclaimed in bin Laden's fatwahs. The only difference is the lack of uniforms and a flag, hence enemy combatant and not enemy soldier, but certainly not criminals.

Certainly not entitled to the protections given to those accused of crimes under the Constitution. In fact, not even entitled to those protections agreed upon in the Geneva Accords. Why, because they are not signatories and more so because they fail to uphold the agreed upon ideals as evidenced in their targeting of innocents.

The distinction between criminals and enemy combatants must be established because war has forever changed. We are just behind the curve.

Rules of Engagement.....

The country is at war. Thousands of miles away, brave men and women bear arms against an enemy. We have invaded countries in the desire to protect our nation and in doing so have removed tyrants who's routine acts are beyond our worst nightmares. The catalyst for this struggle, an act of war which stole 3,000 of our brothers and sisters, not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but here in the homeland. The threat, though somewhat diminished, remains.....

A Question: Is the threat to our country greater here or there? Surely it must be here with our population centers, the infrastructure, and the economy which provides for us all.

The Issue: Since the greater threat is here at home, where the attack which initiated our bold actions occurred. Have the rules of engagement changed for those who protect the borders of our nation? Have we moved from a peacetime to a wartime enforcement posture? Recently while traveling home from Europe, I encountered those with a steely-eyed vigilance and MP5s. While carrying a red passport and moving from one plane to another, I was searched three times. Perhaps I would have felt better if I had been cordially greeted with a smile and welcomed to their country for the hour I was there. . . . but I doubt it.

Doing it on the border....

This is how I feel, I like the bill of rights and it worries me when those guarantees are diminished, for any reason. After 9/11 the former head of the British Security Service (MI5) commented that Americans would have to get used to the loss of freedoms in order to protect the nation against terrorism. She doesn't get it, what is the difference between losing your freedoms through the fear of on-going terrorist attacks or having it legislated away. The reason this diverse, multi-cultural, melting pot of a country endures and works is due to these freedoms and an economy that allows us to support and tend to our families. Remove either of these components and the strength provided by diversity, becomes the wedge that divides other countries into situations such as Kosovo, Rwanda, and Chechnya.

Many of those who would curtail our freedoms domestically, cry for seamless borders to facilitate the movement of people and the goods that fuel the economy. This is a contradiction in the name of security. It would seem to make more sense to screen those entering the country extensively at the border where some freedoms (specifically the 4th amendment) have historically, both through legislation and judicial review, been lowered and keep our freedoms within the borders intact. While this does not consider those who enter the country illegally, the vast majority of those coming into the country do not swim the Rio Grande River or cross the Northern border between legitimate entry points and this includes the 9/11 terrorists.

Los Ebanos, TX Border Crossing

Bush's Legacy.....

Well I was going to share with you the Bush legacy just to get a jump on the rest of the world, but it got a little deep for this hour, so I figure I will hold off. Tomorrow will be here soon enough.

B T

Economy vs Security

About 20,000 containers enter the U.S. everyday. Add to this the number of commercial entries at land borders and airports and the total is more than double this figure. Since our manufacturing base continues to dwindle, more and more our economy is dependent on the arrival of this merchandise. It fuels the biggest consumer market in the world and give us jobs. When the cargo fails to enter the market place for reasons like the longshoreman strike a few years ago, the impact is almost immediate. So the question arises, where is the line drawn between fueling the economy and securing the nation from what might be smuggled in the shipments. Sleep on that one, because that is what I am going to do.

Border Train

About Border Watch.....

Border Watch will visit border issues from the perspective of keeping us safe and free. Hopefully some thoughtful people will share their insight and I can do the same. Anti-Terrorism initiatives dealing with the borders will see quite a bit of attention if things go according to hopes.


Border Train