DHS OIG-09-100 Sep 09

OIG reviewed the 2006 Small Vessel Security Strategy and Implementation Plan. Report lists 40 benchmarks and scored;
19 addressed, 8 partially addressed, and 13 not addressed.

"DHS has identified four scenarios of gravest concern regarding the potential use of small vessels in terrorist-related activities: using a small vessel (1) as a waterborne improvised explosive device, (2) to smuggle weapons (including weapons of mass destruction) into the United States, (3) to smuggle terrorists into the United States, and
(4) as a waterborne platform for conducting an attack."

Results of Audit:
1. DHS has not provided a comprehensive strategy for addressing small vessel threats.
2. DHS’ Small Vessel Security Strategy does not effectively address all the desirable characteristics in GAO’s guidance.
3. The Small Vessel Security Strategy and draft Implementation Plan...need improvement to ensure that they are operating effectively and providing anticipated results.
4. Although DHS recognized the need to increase public awareness and take action to mitigate the risks posed by small vessels, DHS’ approach was hindered because its components are not fully integrated.
-----------------------------------------------
My comments.
The DHS/USCG created the Security Plan, but never received the resources to implement it. The OIG is now finding deficenacies, but does not address the root cause of lack of Congressional support. Whenever my VP would find a new project to do, my boss would alway say, "What do you not want us to do when we do this?" The OIG never addresses the prioritizing of limited resources.

A couple of days ago, a girl who goes with my son in highschool died in a stupid boating accident. That's one death more than any terrorist has killed in the US. There simply is not enough people, money, and time to do all DHS wants the CG to do. A part-time paid civilian reserve corps that can supplement "M" and SAR duties will relieve resources to respond to more serious threats.

quote:

That's one death more than any terrorist has killed in the US.

Come again? I seem to recall that being several thousand deaths less.

T

Huh? I seem to recall something being in the news here a few years back that mentioned something about in excess of 3,000 dead Americans. Anyone else remember that? I guess I could be wrong; it has been a while. But I'm almost certain I recall that.

Anyway, we can't do anything more to protect against the small boat threat. Why? Because if we just say the word "Bang, bang" on a radio, CNN (and some folks on here!) get bent out of shape and go to GQ. I guess maybe we should mime the word "bang"....

quote:

Originally posted by 2494906:
Huh? I seem to recall something being in the news here a few years back that mentioned something about in excess of 3,000 dead Americans. Anyone else remember that? I guess I could be wrong; it has been a while. But I'm almost certain I recall that.

Anyway, we can't do anything more to protect against the small boat threat. Why? Because if we just say the word "Bang, bang" on a radio, CNN (and some folks on here!) get bent out of shape and go to GQ. I guess maybe we should mime the word "bang"....

I think he was trying to say that as a result of waterborne attacks.

I think you bring up a good point though. If the CG was going to go after funding for anti terror programs, the time was immediately following 9-11 and prior to the arrival if a Dem controlled congress.

My thoughts are post 9/11. My point was that the CG should not reallocate resources to prevent a low probability threat when thousand die in water related events that the CG has a more immediate influence over. The OIG did not mention why certain parts of the Security Plan were not implemented, but only faulted the CG and not Congress.

Why are you assuming it's a low probability threat?

quote:

Originally posted by militia1:

quote:

Originally posted by 2494906:
Huh? I seem to recall something being in the news here a few years back that mentioned something about in excess of 3,000 dead Americans. Anyone else remember that? I guess I could be wrong; it has been a while. But I'm almost certain I recall that.

Anyway, we can't do anything more to protect against the small boat threat. Why? Because if we just say the word "Bang, bang" on a radio, CNN (and some folks on here!) get bent out of shape and go to GQ. I guess maybe we should mime the word "bang"....

I think he was trying to say that as a result of waterborne attacks.

I think you bring up a good point though. If the CG was going to go after funding for anti terror programs, the time was immediately following 9-11 and prior to the arrival if a Dem controlled congress.

When exactly (except for deepwater)did Congress vote down CG funding for security measures? Don't make this a GOP/DEM thing.