Both the fourth circuit and the ninth circuit courts have ruled that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) searches of laptops and other electronics are legal; however, people are still proclaiming their protests. A recent USA Today op-ed accused the CBP practice to be “without focus” and “arbitrar[y].” Constitutional objections have also been invoked, claiming the searches to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We are providing too much money in port security not to invest pennies to save dollars. DHS, through the CEDAP and SAVERS Program, have provided a significant amount of financial assistance to first responders conducting objective assessments and validations on commercial equipment and systems – a process that has been crucial to ensuring we are investing our security funding wisely. Yet Congress is now considering reducing the funding for these programs significantly, or cutting them altogether – steps that would have serious implications for the security of our nation’s ports.
The TSA’s air cargo screening regime has gotten much attention lately, including significant time at two recent Congressional hearings. As part of the 9/11 Act, TSA is required to screen 50% of air cargo carried on passenger aircraft by February 2009 and 100% of air cargo by August 2010, at a level “commensurate” to that of checked baggage. Since the Administration has not asked for nor has the Congress appropriated sufficient funds, TSA has decided to implement a Certified Cargo Screening Program (CCSP) under which third-party vendors (such as freight forwarders, indirect air carriers, shippers, etc.) volunteer to participate to screen cargo earlier in the supply chain, before it reaches the airport.
The truth is out: Congress’ attempt at “energy security” in fact helped cause a global food crisis. According to a confidential World Bank study, as reported by The Guardian, biofuels are the primary cause of the global food crisis, forcing up world food prices by 75%. This is a shocking difference from the usual 3% impact the US government has been reporting. In America, the production of these biofuels was legislated by Congress, through subsidies and mandates requiring their production.
The FARC was dealt a severe political, military and public relations defeat last week by the successful operation that led to the release of Ingrid Betencourt and the three American contractors. The days when the FARC was viewed as a meaningful political force are all but gone.
At last week’s hearing of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security & Infrastructure Protection, several witnesses either directly or indirectly emphasized the point that it is impossible to prevent all disaster, whether natural, terrorist, or accidental. This point highlights that managing risk must be coupled with the idea of resiliency – the “bounce back” after a disaster. The hearing was a positive step with regards to shifting the mindset of disaster preparedness in the U.S.; however, it seems that it will be difficult for Congress to wrap its head around the idea of resiliency with regards to risk-management.
The most glaring problem with the “100 percent” model is that it goes against the globally accepted consensus that a risk-analysis and layered approach is a far more comprehensive and effective security model than the concept of “100 percent scanning.”
Earlier this week the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by environmental groups in a case brought to slow the progress on the construction of the border fence, a giant step forward in the effort to secure America’s borders. This was not only good for border security, but it also respected the legislative authority of Congress.
Let’s be clear – TSA screeners are not law enforcement officers. They are not certified inspectors. They do not require access to crime scenes and they are not equipped or trained to respond to law enforcement incidents. They only special access they require is to certain areas of airports – for which their TSA badge and credential provides them access.
Sponsored by:
