From today's Time magazine, more on the security issues associated with loss of control on our southern border.
Intelligence officials tell TIME that interrogation of a member of al-Zarqawi's organization, who was taken into U.S. custody last year and has been described as a top aide, indicates that al-Zarqawi has given ample consideration to assaults on the American homeland. According to a restricted bulletin that circulated among U.S. security agencies last week, the interrogated aide said al-Zarqawi has talked about hitting "soft targets" in the U.S., which could include "movie theaters, restaurants and schools."The bulletin also notes the Iraq-based master terrorist's apparent belief that "if an individual has enough money, he can bribe his way into the U.S.," specifically by obtaining a "visa to Honduras" and then traveling across Mexico and the southern U.S. border.
Al-Zarqawi's aide also revealed that his boss, after pondering the absence of attacks in the U.S. in recent years, concluded that a lack of "willing martyrs" was to blame. Al-Zarqawi believes, according to his lieutenant, that "if an individual is willing to die, there was nothing that could be done to stop him," even in the U.S. There is no evidence, say intelligence agencies, that al-Zarqawi's agents have infiltrated the U.S. But authorities remain vigilant.
RTWT for details on recent security alerts. Border protection is indeed shaping up to be one of the Big Stories for the immediate future.
"...but authorities remain vigilant."
What pathetic journalism on Time's part. Never mind who the Authorities are, what, precisely, is Vigilance in this context?
If and when AQ succeeds again within the continental US, will Time's intrepid reporters still be singing the praises of our civil servants? Or will they by shocked, shocked at the bureaucratic malfeasance that they retrospectively discover?
Perhaps we can form a betting pool.
Well, in fairness to the bureaucrats they are simply carrying out the policies enacted by the legislative and executive branch.
We have porous borders because either our political leaders are not concerned about the issue or they aren't willing to take the steps necessary to correct the issue.
On the other hand, we gain a warrior through legal immigration.
WASHINGTON — An India-born Sikh teenager from California is among the women who are set to trade their makeup kits for an M-16 rifle so as to join the US military in Iraq.
Nineteen-year old Ranbir Kaur is a part-time college student from the obscure San Joaquin Valley town of Earlimart in California. By summer’s end, she expects to put her textbooks aside and serve as a supply clerk in Iraq...
The daughter of Sikh grape farmers, Kaur emigrated at age seven from India to the Bay Area, then moved to Earlimart, a dusty burg of 6,600, about 40 miles from Bakersfield, 70 miles from Fresno.
Does this mean WoT has produced a significant decline on terrorism (specifically US targets at home and abroad) or does this mean the ranks of terrorists are depleting due to a reduction in recruitment / membership?
I do believe WoT plays a significant role in the current status of terrorists / terrorism. What we have not been able to do is quantify appropriately on either side of the equation.
As to porous borders and potential threats of terrorists entering the US I agree with Mike on his assessment. The trip the wife and I took to Ireland after 9/11 did little in the way of verification when arriving back in the USA. This was coming through Logan Airport BTW - one of the worst airports in US in my opinion.
Sorry for the double post - I meant to post this here and not in the previous thread on immigration.
I hear lots of talk about border security from nearly everyone, but no one seems to approach it from the dollars and cents, logistics, risk assesment point of view. As a former military security officer, I can tell you that the very first thing you do is perform a risk assessment. The reason for the RA is that there are never enough resources to do the job 100%. So you perform the RA and rank the threats, then figure out the likelyhood of each threat, and how much it costs to defend against each threat. Then you examine what to do to give you the greatest protection for what you can afford. Folks, the border is the entire perimeter of the country. Do I really have to tell you how long that is? The tighter the security, the less likely someone can get in; but it has to be equally tight at every point. The least secure point on our border automatically becomes the level of security for our entire border. We cannot possibly afford to create an "airtight" border. An attempt to do so would ruin us financially and you would still get "leakers." The best bang-for-the-buck, is to do as we are doing now (the honeypot approach.) Besides, even if you did completely seal the borders; it would not protect us from sleepers that my already be inside. It will not protect us from the infiltration of religous zeal. It will not protect the world-wide commerce that is our economic lifeblood.
74
Your points are valid and here at WoC we have discussed border security in previous topics keeping in mind the points you bring forward. Most of the border security issues have been discussed part and partial in terrorist threat threads.
I for one would like to see the laws currently on the books enforced instead of ignored to gain a better understanding concerning the risk assessment. No doubt we may have to modify some laws and enact newer ones where necessary. Building the Wall of USA is not an option in my opinion. I'm not certain that using our military or reserves to patrol the border is the best option either since this would take away from their current intent.
I'd also add that ports of entry need to be monitored to a higher degree than they currently are. To me it seems valid points of entry are obviously the preferred points of entry in the sense the benefits of easy access and freedom to travel anywhere out weigh a potential disaster and complete failure (crossing the river / desert). That is not to say we should totally ignore those areas of entry either.
Yes it's a question of logistics be they monetary, technological or manpower. I for one want the best bang for the buck that decreases the risk level. To my knowledge there is / has not been a study (risk assessment) concerning risk levels and our vast borders. I'm not certain that we could produce one with any substantial credibility either. That said, I don't find it surprising that it is easier to point to the holes and shout than it is to produce a viable and effective policy.
I've posted a roundup of over 20 new stories on border control and immigration - all from the last 2 days!
We have not "lost control" on our borders. We gave it up when we decided to make people smuggling and drug smuggling profitable.
The answer?
End drug prohibition.
Make it easier for honest people to come and go.
Or we can just throw more money on the fire.
New fire safety rules affecting all non-domestic premises in England and Wales came into force on 1 October 2006.
A fire risk assessment helps you to identify all the fire risks and hazards in your premises. You can then decide to do something to control them.
Articles Fire Risk Assessments:
1. Fire Types & Fire Extinguishers
2. United Kingdom: Fire Departments
3. New Fire Safety Rules
4. Steps Needed For Fire Risk Assessment
5. Steps Are Needed To Save Lives
6. Fire Safety Engineering
7. Safety Rules: Fire Risk Assessment
Fire Risk Assessments
http://www.fireriskassessment.blogspot.com/