OIG Report: Preparation to Respond to a WMD Incident
#1
Posted 15 June 2010 - 01:03 AM
For Clean Up ATF!
#2
Posted 14 June 2010 - 01:11 PM
#4
Posted 12 June 2010 - 07:24 AM
Thor; This IG report was not politically motivated but was a scheduled review and audit of the DOJ response capability. The IG did not commence this audit with an eye towards exposing the shortfalls of any one particular agency. The IG stated the purpose of the review as follows:
Purpose
Our review examined the Department’s and its components’ preparedness for responding to a WMD incident. Specifically, we examined whether:
•
the Department and components have adequate policies and
operational plans for their WMD preparedness activities;
•
the Department and components have a person or office to manage WMD operations, activities, or responsibilities;
•
the Department and its components are training their personnel to respond to a WMD incident;
•
the Department and its components are conducting WMD response exercises; and
•
corrective actions are being taken to resolve deficiencies identified during WMD response exercises.
In addition, we examined the preparations of components’ field offices in the National Capital Region for responding to a WMD incident.26
This was to gauge trhe effectiveness of DOJ's ability under the National Preparedness Framework as stated below:
National Response Framework, January 2008. Issued by the DHS and approved by the President, the National Response Framework implements the requirements in HSPD-5 and HSPD-8 for a consistent approach to emergency response and preparedness for domestic incidents.19 It describes how communities, tribes, states, the federal government, the private sector, and nongovernmental partners should work together to respond to incidents; describes specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents; and reinforces a consistent methodology for managing incidents. It also states that agencies are to conduct exercises and evaluate their performance to identify and correct weaknesses.
The National Response Framework directs federal agencies to develop all-hazards response plans and plans to respond to eight scenarios. Of the eight scenarios, four are WMD-specific and include attacks with nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons.20 In addition, the National Response Framework contains annexes that address specific hazardous incidents. The Department is identified as a cooperating agency in the following annexes: nuclear and radiological, biological, and catastrophic incidents.21 The Department, through the FBI, is identified as the lead coordinator for the Terrorism Incident Law Enforcement and Investigation Annex, which assigns the Department the responsibility for investigating all threats or acts of terrorism.
Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, Emergency Support Function-13 (ESF-13), Public Safety and Security, October 16, 2008. In this memorandum, the Deputy Attorney General stated that in line with a recommendation by the Homeland Security Council following Hurricane Katrina, the Department was assigned the lead role in coordinating federal law enforcement support to state and local and federal government agencies during critical incidents. This responsibility, designated as Emergency Support Function-13 (ESF-13) in the National Response Framework, requires the Department to ensure public safety and security in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. The Attorney General accepted the assignment for the Department in 2006 and assigned the lead role to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The 2008 memorandum formalized ATF’s assignment as the Department’s coordinator for ESF-13 activities to “coordinate the Federal law enforcement response to assist other Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement department and agencies that have been overwhelmed or incapacitated by an act of terrorism or natural or man-made disaster.”
In the review the ATF was identified as the lead agency for ESF 13. ATF was found tto be deficient in its ability to fullfill its staus as lead agency. ATF only has ATF to blem in its failure. The FBI on the other hand was found to have been prepared to respond to incidents. I know several people in the FBI's WMD Directorate. This Directorate was established after 9/11 and well before the Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, Emergency Support Function-13 (ESF-13), Public Safety and Security, October 16, 2008 (see above paragraph) makng ATF the lead agency. It was done in response to DOJ and Congress mandating that agencies prepare themselves for a WMD response capability. After 9/11 the FBI's priorities drastically changed. Counterterrorism and counterintelligence became the number 1 and 2 priorities in the FBI. Within this framework the WMD Directorate was stood up independent of any promtitng from DOJ. Within that framework was the ability to train, respond to, and handle consequences of a WMD incident. In re-establishing its priorities, the FBI reduced its involvement in narcotics, violent crime, property crime, fugitives, and other matters it had previously engaged in. There is still involvement in these programs, but not to the extent it once was.
Given the rquirements of the duites within ESF 13, my colleagues who work in the FBI does no not relish that function. It is a headache. See the next footnote taken from the IG report.
ESF-13 activities include: (1) providing basic law enforcement assistance such as conducting routine patrols and making arrests; (2) issuing identification badges to emergency responders and other personnel needing access to a controlled area and verifying emergency responder credentials; (3) providing security forces to control access to the incident site and critical facilities; (4) providing officers for traffic and crowd control; and (5) providing for protection of emergency responders and other workers operating in a high threat environment.
ESF 13 is best left to the principle state or local agency affected by the consequences of the fallout from a natural or man made disaster. Federal agencies are better left to overall crisis management in overseeing investigative and intelligence functions, and providing logistical support to state and local operators.
s
My point here is to caution you in not throwing the FBI under the bus or making it a scape goat due to the failure of ATF leadership in fullifilling its duty. The FBI had foresight in this matter. It even provided ATF and the other DOJ agencies with reports as to what it was doing to prepare for WMD incidents.
I have friends in the FBI who I keep in touch with as I do research to teach a few college courses. Some are in the WMD Directorate and provided me with some insight into this IG Report.
The issue you seem to have is the perception FBI and other agencies grabbing jurisdiction in things some think should be reserved for a single agancy. I remember when I was a FNG and my training agent told me that the orchard is large enough to pick fruit and that there is plenty of work to go around for everbody. Coordination, not competiton is what truly gets the job done.
I really struggled on whether I should respond to this particular post. I am not on this website for a competing view and to argue back and forth with others.
Obviously, you have got to be former FBI or an FBI sympathizer.
Some of your statements should be directed at your buddies at the FBI.
I will say very simply that my statements were not directed at the FBI's performance in this audit, obviously they faired very well for a change, which is the exception and not the norm. I congratulate them. They are the ones responsible for terrorism attacks. An attack with a WMD would be an act of terrorism. They most definitely would take the lead. Additionally, DOJ has not provided any resources to ATF to be able to accomplish the objectives of the audit.
Whether the audit is scheduled as to the politics of the OIG Report, there was certain informtaion provided by ATF that the OIG ignored or chose to ignore. No matter how rational and articulate your argument above may be the fact still remains that it was political on the part of the OIG. I will not go into detail but that is my take on it. Again, no slam or disrespect on the FBI, they did very well and should be commended.
For Clean Up ATF!
#5
Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:14 AM
#6
Posted 08 June 2010 - 04:43 AM
#7
Posted 06 June 2010 - 08:54 AM
In all fairness, ATF is allowed to offer a response and provide additional information to all IG reports. The original report submitted by IG was more scathing than what was published. It is because of the additional information and comments provided that the IG report was watered down but they still screwed ATF over.
This report was motivated by politics. ATF picked-up the ESF-13 function when no one else would and with no funding or staff attached to it. Now that this function has become more visible and prominent, there is a problem with ATF performing this function and the FBI wants it just like they want everything else.
How does it feel to be abused?
Thor; This IG report was not politically motivated but was a scheduled review and audit of the DOJ response capability. The IG did not commence this audit with an eye towards exposing the shortfalls of any one particular agency. The IG stated the purpose of the review as follows:
Purpose
Our review examined the Department’s and its components’ preparedness for responding to a WMD incident. Specifically, we examined whether:
•
the Department and components have adequate policies and
operational plans for their WMD preparedness activities;
•
the Department and components have a person or office to manage WMD operations, activities, or responsibilities;
•
the Department and its components are training their personnel to respond to a WMD incident;
•
the Department and its components are conducting WMD response exercises; and
•
corrective actions are being taken to resolve deficiencies identified during WMD response exercises.
In addition, we examined the preparations of components’ field offices in the National Capital Region for responding to a WMD incident.26
This was to gauge trhe effectiveness of DOJ's ability under the National Preparedness Framework as stated below:
National Response Framework, January 2008. Issued by the DHS and approved by the President, the National Response Framework implements the requirements in HSPD-5 and HSPD-8 for a consistent approach to emergency response and preparedness for domestic incidents.19 It describes how communities, tribes, states, the federal government, the private sector, and nongovernmental partners should work together to respond to incidents; describes specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents; and reinforces a consistent methodology for managing incidents. It also states that agencies are to conduct exercises and evaluate their performance to identify and correct weaknesses.
The National Response Framework directs federal agencies to develop all-hazards response plans and plans to respond to eight scenarios. Of the eight scenarios, four are WMD-specific and include attacks with nuclear, radiological, biological, and chemical weapons.20 In addition, the National Response Framework contains annexes that address specific hazardous incidents. The Department is identified as a cooperating agency in the following annexes: nuclear and radiological, biological, and catastrophic incidents.21 The Department, through the FBI, is identified as the lead coordinator for the Terrorism Incident Law Enforcement and Investigation Annex, which assigns the Department the responsibility for investigating all threats or acts of terrorism.
Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, Emergency Support Function-13 (ESF-13), Public Safety and Security, October 16, 2008. In this memorandum, the Deputy Attorney General stated that in line with a recommendation by the Homeland Security Council following Hurricane Katrina, the Department was assigned the lead role in coordinating federal law enforcement support to state and local and federal government agencies during critical incidents. This responsibility, designated as Emergency Support Function-13 (ESF-13) in the National Response Framework, requires the Department to ensure public safety and security in the event of a natural or man-made disaster. The Attorney General accepted the assignment for the Department in 2006 and assigned the lead role to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The 2008 memorandum formalized ATF’s assignment as the Department’s coordinator for ESF-13 activities to “coordinate the Federal law enforcement response to assist other Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement department and agencies that have been overwhelmed or incapacitated by an act of terrorism or natural or man-made disaster.”
In the review the ATF was identified as the lead agency for ESF 13. ATF was found tto be deficient in its ability to fullfill its staus as lead agency. ATF only has ATF to blem in its failure. The FBI on the other hand was found to have been prepared to respond to incidents. I know several people in the FBI's WMD Directorate. This Directorate was established after 9/11 and well before the Memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General, Emergency Support Function-13 (ESF-13), Public Safety and Security, October 16, 2008 (see above paragraph) makng ATF the lead agency. It was done in response to DOJ and Congress mandating that agencies prepare themselves for a WMD response capability. After 9/11 the FBI's priorities drastically changed. Counterterrorism and counterintelligence became the number 1 and 2 priorities in the FBI. Within this framework the WMD Directorate was stood up independent of any promtitng from DOJ. Within that framework was the ability to train, respond to, and handle consequences of a WMD incident. In re-establishing its priorities, the FBI reduced its involvement in narcotics, violent crime, property crime, fugitives, and other matters it had previously engaged in. There is still involvement in these programs, but not to the extent it once was.
Given the rquirements of the duites within ESF 13, my colleagues who work in the FBI does no not relish that function. It is a headache. See the next footnote taken from the IG report.
ESF-13 activities include: (1) providing basic law enforcement assistance such as conducting routine patrols and making arrests; (2) issuing identification badges to emergency responders and other personnel needing access to a controlled area and verifying emergency responder credentials; (3) providing security forces to control access to the incident site and critical facilities; (4) providing officers for traffic and crowd control; and (5) providing for protection of emergency responders and other workers operating in a high threat environment.
ESF 13 is best left to the principle state or local agency affected by the consequences of the fallout from a natural or man made disaster. Federal agencies are better left to overall crisis management in overseeing investigative and intelligence functions, and providing logistical support to state and local operators.
My point here is to caution you in not throwing the FBI under the bus or making it a scape goat due to the failure of ATF leadership in fullifilling its duty. The FBI had foresight in this matter. It even provided ATF and the other DOJ agencies with reports as to what it was doing to prepare for WMD incidents.
I have friends in the FBI who I keep in touch with as I do research to teach a few college courses. Some are in the WMD Directorate and provided me with some insight into this IG Report.
The issue you seem to have is the perception FBI and other agencies grabbing jurisdiction in things some think should be reserved for a single agancy. I remember when I was a FNG and my training agent told me that the orchard is large enough to pick fruit and that there is plenty of work to go around for everbody. Coordination, not competiton is what truly gets the job done.
#8
Posted 06 June 2010 - 04:32 AM
For Clean Up ATF!
#9 Guest_Corny_*
Posted 02 June 2010 - 11:17 AM
#10 Guest_microscope_*
Posted 02 June 2010 - 08:35 AM
#11
Posted 02 June 2010 - 07:33 AM
#12
Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:37 AM
#13
Posted 02 June 2010 - 06:19 AM
ATF management has proven that they can't even handle their internal problems let alone an national emergency. Seriously people, it takes these guys a month to make a decision that should take a minute. A WMD attack with ATF in the decision mix? Our leaderhip will all be deer caught in the headlights. They make look and sound good during a tabletop excercise but put these guys into play in any type of real time event and they will choke it away.
See below article from the Washington Post about OIG report. One of the recommendations was for the DOJ to reconsider ATF's role in WMD response and Emergency Management as the lead agency in the ESF 13 position. This will erode ATF's position as a viable agency in national disaster and law enforcement responses. Fox News also reported on this matter during the 9:00 AM slot further publicizing ATF's lack of fullfilling its responsibilities. The Bush and Obama Administrations are sending a strong signal as to how they regard the ATF by not appointing a Director. This report will add another nail to the ATF coffin. My contacts in the DC area close to the DOJ indicate to me that the ATF's star is waning. They say that the ATF is seen as a redundancy in that they share jurisdiction such as investigating violent crimes, gangs, narcotics, and bombings with other agencies such as the DEA, Marshals, FBI, and Postal Inspectors. The Border Patrol, ICE, CBP, and the DEA are pulling in more guns at the border that the ATF. I've seen other agencies charge felons with 924c and 922g violations without ATF involvement. I heard AUSA's express reluctance in prosecuting traditional ATF violations in favor of state prosecutions. I read the reports of turf wars between the FBI and ATF in explosives investigations. This OIG report will not bode well for the future of this organization. With the leadership void in ATF, I do not see anyone advocating the positive influences ATF has had on the security of this nation. What will happen next?
FBI is sole Justice agency prepared for terror attack, report says
By Jeff Stein
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The FBI appears to be ready for a chemical, biological or radiological terrorist attack, but the rest of the Justice Department "is not prepared," according to a blistering audit released Tuesday.
The report by Glenn A. Fine, Justice's inspector general, singled out the department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for particular scorn, suggesting that the bureau was only dimly aware that it had been designated Justice's "lead coordinator" in responding to an attack with weapons of mass destruction.
The rationale for giving ATF, and not the FBI, the lead role was not explained in the report.
Other Justice Department components did not escape the inspector general's wrath.
"[W]e found that no Department law enforcement component, other than the FBI, has specific WMD operational response plans. ATF, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the United States Marshals Service (USMS) each have groups that manage all-hazards responses, but these groups do not include specific preparations for WMD incidents," the inspector general said.
Those agencies weren't even curious about what the FBI was up to, the report said.
"When we asked if they were familiar with the FBI's WMD response plan, officials from ATF, the DEA, and the USMS said they were not familiar with the plan and had not asked to see it," the report said.
"Our review concluded that only the FBI has taken adequate steps to prepare to respond to a potential WMD attack" including in the Washington area, it said.
The Justice Department took its medicine without complaint.
"We concur in all five recommendations and will implement" them, Associate Deputy Attorney General James A. Baker said in a written response.
The DEA, however, protested, saying that it did participate in drills, citing one every year between 2005 and 2008. But auditors said they were not the same kind of exercises under discussion in their report.
The ATF and Marshals Service did not offer a formal defense of their bad grades.
#14 Guest_microscope_*
Posted 01 June 2010 - 11:01 PM
#15 Guest_Simple Man_*
Posted 01 June 2010 - 09:06 PM
#16
Posted 01 June 2010 - 08:33 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users