Our first head of the Department of Homeland Security has written a tell all and it’s more of the same we’ve heard from insiders about the former administration. They politicized nearly everything and made the wrong decision and nearly every turn.

From US News:

Among the headlines promoted by publisher Thomas Dunne Books: Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored;

Never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings? The director of the government agency that was created in the aftermath of 9/11?

WTF??????????

So yes, that’s a bombshell, but the one in the title seems to be even more craven…

and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

Yes, 3 years after the worst terrorist attack in our country’s history, Bush and company were scaring people into voting for him. I think that tells you all you need to know about the guy and his crew.

My question…we finally going to get some mea culpas from the right or will Tom Ridge simply be smeared like Paul O’Neill, Richard Clarke and Scott McClellan?

I’m not holding my breath.

It’s true.

And they’ve been doing it since the 1950s. You can even follow Santa’s path yourself by going here.

But remember, don’t try to catch Santa.

If he sees you, he won’t bring you anything.

[Listen Online] or [Download]

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

This is, of course, to help uncover terrorists and other criminals. Customs and Border Protection say they are not using the information to look for patterns of movement, but admit the data could be used by other law enforcement agencies that are trying out new technology designed to uncover suspicious or criminal behavior.

I fall pretty solidly in the libertarian camp when it comes to issues of privacy and how much we should allow our government to monitor us. Heck, I have serious problems with red light cameras. I know I’m not a moderate on this issue. So I will keep my personal comments short and cynical: eventually, I expect some government official/agency to seriously advocate warrantless monitoring of all U.S. citizens’ credit card purchases, phone calls and travel in order to detect criminal patterns of behavior. And a depressing chunk of people will support the measure because, as the naïve saying goes, “if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.”

O.k., I’m done with the over-the-top part of this post. Back to a reasoned discussion.

I know our government has been recording information on international air arrivals for many years. And I know including land border crossings in that system is not a big change. But shouldn’t there be some protections as to who can access this information and for what cause (such as a system of warrants)? Am I just being overly concerned here? What do you think?

From Wired:

U.S. Has Launched a Cyber Security ‘Manhattan Project,’
Homeland Security Chief Claims

SAN FRANCISCO — The federal government has launched a cyber security “Manhattan Project,” U.S. homeland security secretary Michael Chertoff said Tuesday, because online attacks can be a form of “devastating warfare”, and equivalent in damage to “physical destruction of the worst kind.”

Speaking to hundreds of security professionals at the RSA security conference, Chertoff cited last year’s denial-of-service attacks against Estonia, and hypothetical hack attacks on financial networks and air traffic control systems, as proof that a federal strategy was needed.

“Imagine, if you will, a sophisticated attack on our financial systems that caused them to be paralyzed,” Chertoff said. “It would shake the foundation of trust on which our financial system works.”

…

The Bush administration’s Cyber Initiative has gotten $150 million in funding for this year, and the administration is requesting $192 million for 2009.

Chertoff hopes that the government’s new cyber security efforts will lead to technology breakthroughs that it can share with the private sector. Silicon Valley entrepreneur Rod Beckstrom was recently named to head that effort.

In fact, Chertoff imagines the government’s cyber security center will transform its current intrusion detection system, named Einstein, into a pre-computer crime detector.

“We might have the ability to understand the signature of an attack before it is launched,” Chertoff said. “I think it could become an early warning system that might be able to detect an attack before it is coming. Giving an adversary one bite at the apple before we understand the attack’s meta data, or the code, is one bite too many.”

One side-benefit of better cyber security is less identity and intellectual property theft…

I’ve been harping about the need for this for a long time. Its good to see DHS and the administration taking this seriously. The attack on Estonia as well asincreased hacking by China into govt and private networks probably greatly contributed to the DHS finally taking network security seriously. I just wish that they had been more proactive in implementing this initiative. Given the amount of time it’ll take the R&D people to come up with solutions our networks will continue to be vulnerable for a long while. In theory had we taken up a similar initiative shortly after 9/11 we could have already had security solutions in place by now.

However internet security tends to be reactive rather than proactive. So while I’m glad to see them finally getting the ball rolling on this I’m hoping they’ll get everything up and running before the Zombies get us all.

From WSJ:

Spychief Mike McConnell is drafting a plan to protect America’s cyberspace that will raise privacy issues and make the current debate over surveillance law look like “a walk in the park,” McConnell tells The New Yorker in the issue set to hit newsstands Monday. “This is going to be a goat rope on the Hill. My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

At issue, McConnell acknowledges, is that in order to accomplish his plan, the government must have the ability to read all the information crossing the Internet in the United States in order to protect it from abuse. Congressional aides tell The Journal that they, too, are also anticipating a fight over civil liberties that will rival the battles over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Umm, no thanks USA. I think you can figure out a different way to keep us safe from the bad guys. Because even though you’re trying to convince that there’s such a thing as 100% safety, we know better.

Rudy recommended “America’s Cop” for the top job when the Department of Homeland Security first opened shop. Bush nominated him, but Bernie’s past soon caught up with him and he withdrew. Now we know why. He was just indicted.

From NY Times:

The grand jury voted to indict Mr. Kerik on conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, and substantive counts of wire and mail fraud, under a statute often used in corruption cases, according to people briefed on the vote. The panel also voted to charge him with lying on a mortgage application and his homeland security application and with several counts of tax fraud.

Democrats and rival campaigns are already looking at the indictment as a way to call Mr. Giuliani’s judgment into question, and to try to cloud his reputation in areas in which he is seen as strong: on fighting crime and corruption.

That was apparent after Mr. Giuliani held a question-and-answer session with students here Thursday afternoon at Iowa State University: as the crowd left the hall, they were greeted by a man in a suit and a Giuliani mask holding aloft a sign that read “Free Bernie Kerik!”

So it stands to reason that this does not bode well for Giuliani’s credibility, right? Well…will it really matter to anybody who wants him to run because he’s “America’s Mayor?” Especially if it becomes apparent that Rudy is the only guy who has a chance at carrying the GOP to victory? I obviously think the answer to both is “no” because ultimately people want to win.

From Wash Post:

The GAO states that after the largest government merger in more than half a century, the DHS met fewer than half of its performance objectives, or 78 of 171 directives identified by President Bush, Congress and the department’s own strategic plans. The department strongly disputed the report.

In one of its harshest conclusions, the 320-page document states that the DHS has made the least progress toward some of the fundamental goals identified after the 2001 attacks and again after Hurricane Katrina in August 2005: improving emergency preparedness; capitalizing on the nation’s wealth and scientific prowess through “Manhattan project”-style research initiatives; and eliminating bureaucratic and technical barriers to information-sharing.

Yesterday, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said that although the DHS “has made important progress,” it requires more focused attention and money. “Clearly, we have a long way to go before the department achieves the goals we set out for it four and a half years ago,” said Lieberman, who will chair a hearing on the matter this afternoon.

I believe this department, whether its formation was wise or not, is of paramount importance because our borders still aren’t secure and our ports are still wide open. And it’s also a tragic irony that this report finds that the most important thing it was created to do is being prevented because, well, it was created in the first place. What do I mean? Read more…

GAO analysts acknowledged that DHS’s enormous size and complexity — spanning 220,000 employees and 22 component agencies — make the challenge “especially daunting and important.” They also said they do not intend to suggest that the DHS should have already met all expectations. “Successful transformations of large organizations, even those faced with less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take at least 5 to 7 years to achieve,” the GAO stated.

Still, although prior studies focused on the DHS’s many organizational problems — leading Chertoff to direct the department to sharpen its focus after he took office in February 2005 — the report indicates that it still has difficulty carrying out policy decisions and setting priorities.

In other words, we created it so we could have a more nimble response to national security threats, but its WAY too big to be nimble in response to national security threats. Or even threats from Mother Nature, as Katrina showed us.

Should a re-org of the DHS be a top priority for the next President? I think so.