Anti Federalist
04-02-2013, 02:15 PM
"Special Missions"...and they laughed at Ron and Jesse when they said it would be used to keep us IN.
Border Drone Program Off to Rough Start
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324883604578398453574545348.html
WASHINGTON—Tightened border security is at the center of immigration proposals in Congress, and for many lawmakers that means greater use of drones and other high-tech technologies.
But initial tryouts of drones and blimps along U.S. borders suggest the aircraft are more expensive and complex to operate than the government planned.
Shortages of qualified staff, flight limitations imposed by federal aviation regulators and other issues kept the Customs and Border Patrol's drones operating only 37% of the time they were available, according to a May 2012 report by the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general.
In a written response, the CBP said it had taken steps to make sure the planes were more effectively used. The agency declined repeated requests for comment beyond that response.
Backers of drones say increased funding could help border agents make better use of technology that has already proved useful for the U.S. military.
"In Pakistan and Afghanistan, these things have been hugely successful in crippling al Qaeda and the Taliban, really decimating their command-and-control structure," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. On the border, he said, they'll be "visibility assets."
Unlike drones used in war zone, where the U.S. military uses them for both intelligence gathering and lethal air strikes, the DHS's domestic drone fleet isn't armed.
Efforts to beef up border security are tied to the bipartisan Senate proposal that could provide legal status to some of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. The proposal requires the Obama administration to certify security standards before allowing immigrants to qualify for citizenship, and it calls for more unmanned aerial vehicles along the border.
Rep. McCaul said he was preparing legislation that would require the Obama administration to come up with a formal security strategy, including redeploying on the border high-tech military equipment being returned from the wars.
Complicating any proposed technology fixes is the Homeland Security Department's shaky history with technology projects, such as its failed billion-dollar "electronic fence" system. The system of radar and camera towers was supposed to give agents mobile views of stretches of rugged border terrain, but it never worked as planned. The department in 2011 cut its losses by canceling the program.
Mr. McCaul says the bungled project called SBInet, which included the virtual fence plan, set back the cause of border security five years. Meanwhile, he says, better security elsewhere along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border has put a greater burden on his home state. "There are more crossings in Texas because of towers built in Arizona," he said.
The Department of Homeland Security last year began testing blimps equipped with cameras and radar, similar to those used in the overseas wars, in parts of the border. The Customs and Border Patrol already conducts unarmed surveillance drone flights on the southern border, the northern border and over the Caribbean.
According to the Homeland Security inspector general's report, the border-patrol agency has 10 such drones. Each unmanned plane system costs about $18 million. They are based in Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Corpus Christi, Texas; Cocoa Beach, Fla.; and Grand Forks, N.D.
The review concluded the Customs and Border Patrol had "shortfalls of qualified staff and equipment," which, together with flight limitations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, limited actual flight time.
Without enough personnel and equipment to operate the drones, the inspector general found, the CBP had to take $25 million from other programs to plug gaps in the drone operations during the 2010 budget year.
The CBP said in a written response that it agreed with the report's recommendations.
Mr. McCaul said he has seen firsthand the CBP's struggles with the new technology at the Corpus Christi base, where flights are often delayed because of wind. He said the drones should be based in sections along the Texas border less prone to coastal windy conditions.
The prospect of increasing the drone fleet is prompting some unease among civil libertarians because the border agency allows local law enforcement and federal agencies to use the aircraft for special missions over U.S. territory.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group, has petitioned the government to suspend its border drone program until it creates privacy rules for the information that is gathered. "The principle of using the technology isn't what's at issue. It's the procedures that they have in place to make sure that individual rights are protected,'' said the center's Amie Stepanovich.
Mr. McCaul said there should be minimal concern about privacy issues so long as the surveillance is limited to "the international border, where I think most people understand that there is need…given the drug cartels and the threat of terrorist activity."
Border Drone Program Off to Rough Start
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324883604578398453574545348.html
WASHINGTON—Tightened border security is at the center of immigration proposals in Congress, and for many lawmakers that means greater use of drones and other high-tech technologies.
But initial tryouts of drones and blimps along U.S. borders suggest the aircraft are more expensive and complex to operate than the government planned.
Shortages of qualified staff, flight limitations imposed by federal aviation regulators and other issues kept the Customs and Border Patrol's drones operating only 37% of the time they were available, according to a May 2012 report by the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general.
In a written response, the CBP said it had taken steps to make sure the planes were more effectively used. The agency declined repeated requests for comment beyond that response.
Backers of drones say increased funding could help border agents make better use of technology that has already proved useful for the U.S. military.
"In Pakistan and Afghanistan, these things have been hugely successful in crippling al Qaeda and the Taliban, really decimating their command-and-control structure," said Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. On the border, he said, they'll be "visibility assets."
Unlike drones used in war zone, where the U.S. military uses them for both intelligence gathering and lethal air strikes, the DHS's domestic drone fleet isn't armed.
Efforts to beef up border security are tied to the bipartisan Senate proposal that could provide legal status to some of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. The proposal requires the Obama administration to certify security standards before allowing immigrants to qualify for citizenship, and it calls for more unmanned aerial vehicles along the border.
Rep. McCaul said he was preparing legislation that would require the Obama administration to come up with a formal security strategy, including redeploying on the border high-tech military equipment being returned from the wars.
Complicating any proposed technology fixes is the Homeland Security Department's shaky history with technology projects, such as its failed billion-dollar "electronic fence" system. The system of radar and camera towers was supposed to give agents mobile views of stretches of rugged border terrain, but it never worked as planned. The department in 2011 cut its losses by canceling the program.
Mr. McCaul says the bungled project called SBInet, which included the virtual fence plan, set back the cause of border security five years. Meanwhile, he says, better security elsewhere along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border has put a greater burden on his home state. "There are more crossings in Texas because of towers built in Arizona," he said.
The Department of Homeland Security last year began testing blimps equipped with cameras and radar, similar to those used in the overseas wars, in parts of the border. The Customs and Border Patrol already conducts unarmed surveillance drone flights on the southern border, the northern border and over the Caribbean.
According to the Homeland Security inspector general's report, the border-patrol agency has 10 such drones. Each unmanned plane system costs about $18 million. They are based in Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Corpus Christi, Texas; Cocoa Beach, Fla.; and Grand Forks, N.D.
The review concluded the Customs and Border Patrol had "shortfalls of qualified staff and equipment," which, together with flight limitations imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, limited actual flight time.
Without enough personnel and equipment to operate the drones, the inspector general found, the CBP had to take $25 million from other programs to plug gaps in the drone operations during the 2010 budget year.
The CBP said in a written response that it agreed with the report's recommendations.
Mr. McCaul said he has seen firsthand the CBP's struggles with the new technology at the Corpus Christi base, where flights are often delayed because of wind. He said the drones should be based in sections along the Texas border less prone to coastal windy conditions.
The prospect of increasing the drone fleet is prompting some unease among civil libertarians because the border agency allows local law enforcement and federal agencies to use the aircraft for special missions over U.S. territory.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group, has petitioned the government to suspend its border drone program until it creates privacy rules for the information that is gathered. "The principle of using the technology isn't what's at issue. It's the procedures that they have in place to make sure that individual rights are protected,'' said the center's Amie Stepanovich.
Mr. McCaul said there should be minimal concern about privacy issues so long as the surveillance is limited to "the international border, where I think most people understand that there is need…given the drug cartels and the threat of terrorist activity."