Police Agencies Convert Grants to Robots
Law enforcement agencies, using grant money from the federal government, increasingly
are investing in robots to prepare for domestic threats.
“Right now the biggest law enforcement concern is getting existing technology
into their hands,” said Mark Barber, president of Remotec, a subsidiary
of Northrop Grumman. “They’re just trying to get up to date, and
it’s been a struggle. But these customers want these vehicles.”
Since the company’s inception the majority of its clients have been law
enforcement and domestic agencies. “The states are getting funding now,
and it’s getting down to the local level,” he said.
“After September 11, the urgency was ratcheted up immediately,”
he said at a news conference. “In the U.S., speed was not that critical.
If you had a bomb, it was just a pipe bomb in a mailbox you could disarm at
leisure.”
The military also is demanding robots to deploy to combat zones—subjecting
the systems to a trial by fire in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia. According to Cliff Hudson, project manager of the Defense Department’s
joint robotics program, 163 robotic systems from a handful of private contractors
are deployed in Iraq. The goal is to keep those that perform well.
“These systems were pressed into duty because of demand,” he said.
“The bad news is we’re losing systems in the field. The good news
is we’re losing systems in the field.”
The practical lessons learned in combat—disarming bombs, navigating urban
environments and conducting chemical surveillance—are directly applicable
to homeland security concerns, said Royce Hollman, Remotec’s point man
for customer service and training. “Up until Iraq, there were two distinct differences based on their missions,”
Royce said. “Since then, the military needs have gotten closer to law
enforcement.”
California Lobbies for Training Site
The absence of integrated training among civilian leadership, first responders
and police forces is a dangerous gap in the way the country is preparing for
disasters, said California law enforcement officials.
A delegation recently was in Washington to pitch a federally funded expansion
for a training center in Sacramento.“On the law enforcement side, our training is nowhere near that of firefighters,”
said Michael Smith, assistant sheriff for Sacramento County. “That might
be a tough pill to swallow, but we need to catch up, and catch up fast.”
Sacramento officials are seeking funds for Project HomeSTAR, which aims to
transform the closed McClellan Air Force Base into a facility to train police,
firefighters and relevant government employees in teams, with each being taught
their part independently before slowly integrating the lessons in larger exercises.
They are asking the Department of Homeland Security for $150 million during
the next 25 years to train first responders, plus $14 million over the next
two years to rehabilitate existing buildings.
The project would expand an existing Joint Powers Authority training center,
which currently supports 500 first responders and public safety students a week.
“The demand for training across the country is going to skyrocket,”
Smith predicts. “The money to purchase equipment has become available,
and people are going to realize they don’t have the training to use it.
They are going to be overwhelmed.”
Among the deficiencies in security training cited by HomeSTAR’s supporters
are the scattershot of training areas across the country. Each are designated
to prepare for a single threat, making integrated training logistically difficult
for local agencies. A single, multi-disciplinary teaching headquarters would
serve as “one-stop shopping” for local officials.
“With most first responders, like police or firefighters, there is a
command structure they can turn to when disaster strikes,” Smith said.
“Government officials are outside that command structure, and it can cause
problems. ... We need to get our state and local leaders through training so
they can delineate roles.”
Sacramento officials also hope that McClellan would serve as a headquarters
during actual disasters, using its large, unused runway to deploy stockpiled
equipment. Sacramento also sits on a seismically calm part of California, making
it a logical center for earthquake response.
Sacramento’s deputy police chief, Rick Brazil, noted that responding
to a disaster requires close cooperation between a slew of local and state agencies,
coordination that can only come from training together. “There needs to
be a whole lot more regional centers doing what we’re doing,” he
said.
DHS Forms Science and Tech Focused Think Tank
The Department of Homeland Security has formed its first research and development
center that is dedicated to investigate policy where scientific, technical,
and analytical expertise is required.
Congress mandated the creation of the “Homeland Security Institute”
in 2002, requiring DHS to create an independent resource that could examine
critical issues and mitigate threats and vulnerabilities. The Institute, managed
by Analytic Services Inc., will assess new technologies and systems that are
being considered for homeland defense to determine if they are appropriate for
deployment. Likewise, the think tank will be tasked with analyzing operational approaches
to risks to evaluate their effectiveness.
Pros, Cons of Foreign Domestic Intelligence
Domestic security services in foreign democratic societies that lack law enforcement
powers are better able to concentrate on assessing threats and ease interagency
collaboration, according to a recently released report from Rand Corp.
The report, which compares domestic intelligence bureaus in Canada, France,
the United Kingdom and Australia, analyzes strengths and weaknesses of each
counterterrorism structure in an effort to guide the United States as it ponders
creating its own domestic intelligence bureau.
Divorcing law enforcement from intelligence gathering ensures that domestic
counterterrorism bureaus devote all of their resources to preemptive information
gathering, the report states. Personnel who would not normally be drawn to police
work find a place in domestic intelligence bureau. This helps foster “well-rounded,
creative and forward looking analytical assessments that have straddled both
the tactical and strategic dimensions,” the report says.
However, the report warns that the track record of the four nations is “far
from perfect” and notes that accepted democratic norms have been violated
in the name of counterterrorism. A lack of trust between agencies, a familiar
specter in the U.S. intelligence community, persists in each nation. In France,
the report points out, police and intelligence agencies have not only failed
to coordinate but have sometimes worked at cross-purposes. The report also cautions
that the intelligence programs have suffered from a lack of oversight or legislative
control.
Coast Guard Boosts Security at Foreign Ports
The Coast Guard announced a new program to help bolster security arrangements
between the United States and its maritime trading partners, including annual
visits by a team of U.S. officials and the permanent stationing of liaison officers
to foreign ports.
The goal of the program is to ensure compliance with the International Ship
and Port Facility Security Code, adopted in December 2002 and going into effect
this July. The traveling team and liaison officers will share methods, give
advice, and assess the host nation’s interpretation of the new code that
was enacted in response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
The code compels every participating port facility to adopt new systems of
ship verification and certification, and requires security plans and security
officers in ports and on ships. Controlling access to the ships and facilities
is also required, as well as ensuring ready communications between the two.
Vessels that make port calls in places that are not participants or are not
in compliance with the international code will be subject to boarding at sea
prior to entry into American ports, control by armed escorts, comprehensive
security inspections, or denial of entry into U.S. waters.
The traveling team is scheduled to visit 45 countries each year. The Coast
Guard will use the information from the visits to determine if additional security
precautions are necessary for vessels arriving in the U.S. from other countries.
Missile Defenses for Airliners Still Years Away
Manufacturers of antimissile protection systems repeatedly have stressed that
these technologies could be installed on civilian airliners relatively painlessly
and within a short period.
But these assurances belie the reality that it may take years to assess whether
it makes sense for the airlines to install these systems. It is not clear, for
example, what impact antimissile systems will have on operations, logistics,
maintenance and safety, said James Carey, vice president for business development
of Avisys Inc. The company supplies an antimissile system that is competing
in a Department of Homeland Security program called “counter manpads.”
Manpads are man-portable air defense systems, typically heat-seeking missiles
that target low-flying aircraft.
“Defense contractors are running around saying we can put equipment on
a commercial airplane,” Carey said. “But there are no FAA (Federal
Aviation Administration) regulations, policies or procedures for putting defensive
equipment on commercial airplanes.”
Until DHS can identify all the issues associated with putting equipment on
airlines and FAA specs are defined, “we won’t be putting any equipment
on airplanes,” he said. “There is no formal direction from Congress
to go into production or implement any particular protection.”
Avisys successfully installed a missile-defense system aboard an Airbus jet
for the Jordanian government. Other companies, such as Northrop Grumman and
BAE Systems, have equipped military aircraft with antimissile defenses. But
the commercial market is an entirely different ballgame.
In the government market, said Carey, “we can deliver hardware and we
know how to work with military aircraft. On commercial airplanes, we don’t
have a thing to say.”
Carey predicted it will take “a long time” before Congress will
be ready to make decisions on the production and installation of protective
systems.
The problem, he noted, is that “contractors have gotten ahead of ourselves,
saying we could install hardware on commercial aircraft before the U.S. government
was really able to handle it.”
–Reported by Joe Pappalardo and Sandra Erwin