Federal buildings poorly defended

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

CNN says:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Plainclothes investigators sent to test security at federal buildings in four U.S. cities were successful in smuggling bomb components through guard posts at all 10 of the sites they visited, according to a government report.

The investigators then assembled the bombs in restrooms and freely entered numerous government offices while carrying the devices in briefcases, the report said.

The buildings contained offices of several federal lawmakers as well as agencies within the departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security, which is responsible for safeguarding federal office buildings.

CNN obtained the report late Tuesday, ahead of its expected release Wednesday at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, conducted the tests to check on the effectiveness of the Federal Protective Service .The FPS protects federal buildings by having about 1,200 federal law enforcement officers oversee an army of 13,000 private security guards.

In a videotape obtained by CNN, a covert GAO inspector places a bag containing bomb components on an X-ray machine conveyor belt and then walks through a magnetometer at an unidentified federal building. Unlike some covert tests that use simulated explosives, the GAO used actual bomb components in the test and publicly available information "to identify a type of device that a terrorist could use" to damage a building.

"The (improvised explosive device) was made up of two parts -- a liquid explosive and a low-yield detonator -- and included a variety of materials not typically brought into a federal facility by an employee or the public," the report says. Investigators obtained the components at local stores and over the Internet for less than $150, the report says.

After the components were smuggled into the building and assembled, the GAO says, it took steps to ensure the device would not explode. But to demonstrate the device's destructive power, the GAO videotaped the detonation of several devices at a remote site.

The GAO also released a photograph of a guard asleep at his post and detailed an instance in which a woman placed an infant in a carrier on an X-ray machine while retrieving identification. Because the guard was not paying attention and the machine's safety features had been disabled, the infant was sent through the X-ray machine, according to the report.

The FPS dismissed the guard, who, as a result, sued the agency for failing to provide X-ray training. FPS lost the suit because it could not prove that the guard had been trained, the report says.


All of the buildings involved in the test were "Level IV" buildings, meaning they housed more than 450 federal employees and have a high volume of public contact. The GAO has declined to identify the specific buildings "because of the sensitivity of some of the information in our report," the report says.

The GAO said that FPS has taken several steps to improve oversight of the guard program in response to the GAO investigation.

Specifically, the FPS has authorized overtime to conduct guard post inspections during off-business hours and is conducting its own tests. It has also moved to standardize inspections of guard posts across the country.

In prepared testimony, FPS Director Gary Schenkel said, "It was apparent FPS was experiencing some serious challenges" when he arrived at the agency in early 2007. Schenkel says the FPS has been focused on "standardizing its practices."

"When GAO presented its findings several weeks ago, we took it very seriously," Schenkel's testimony says. Within three hours of learning of the issued identified by the GAO, he increased the number of inspections of guard posts, he said. He has also established a team to "aggressively attack" the challenge of overseeing the contract guard program, he said.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut and chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, called the test results "simply unacceptable."

"We knew that the FPS was a troubled agency, but that GAO could penetrate security at these buildings and make bombs without detection is truly shocking," he said.

The security lapses "show a disturbing pattern by the Federal Protective Service of poor training, lapsed documentation, lax management, inconsistent enforcement of security standards and little rigor," added Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the committee's ranking member.

The GAO report concludes that FPS "does not fully ensure that its guards have the training and certifications required to stand post at federal facilities."

The GAO says it visited six of the 11 FPS regions and that in all six regions, FPS did not require some of its guards to complete the mandatory 128 hours of training.

In one region, FPS "has not provided the required 8 hours of (X-ray) or magnetometer training to its 1,500 guards since 2004," the report says.

The report also says FPS does not have a national guidance on how often FPS inspectors should check on the contract guards. In several instances when inspectors have checked on guards, they found "instances of guards not complying with post orders."

In one case, the GAO report says, a guard was caught using government computers to manage a for-profit adult Web site.

David Wright, president of a union which represents about 1,000 federal employees, said the study shows the FPS is in a "pretty sad state."

"I do not believe that adequate training is provided (for the contract guards)," he said. "I think it is very unequal -- kind of a mish-mash across the country. In some cases we leave training up to the contractor, and (it) clearly is not sufficient."

Wright says his immediate goal is to have federal officers -- not contract guards -- protect Level IV buildings, and ultimately to have them protect Level III buildings as well.
Emphasis is mine. Video and photo referenced in the text can be found at the link posted above.

I knew that our security apparatus was far from perfect, and that there were some very vulnerable areas in this country, but the utter incompetence of the FPS is astounding.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Darth Wong »

I think this just goes to show how exaggerated the threat of Al-Quaeda actually is. If they were a tenth as dangerous as they are portrayed to be, they would have taken advantage of these kinds of security problems a long time ago (not to mention similar security problems at airports). They've had a lot of time since 9/11 to do that sort of thing, and they haven't.

The only reason they did so much damage on 9/11 was the fact that nobody realized they were even trying to kill anyone. At the time, the standard practice with terrorists was to cooperate and stall them while trying to negotiate, because it was assumed that they didn't really want to kill anyone; they just wanted to threaten to kill people in order to get what they want from negotiators.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Darth Lucifer
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1685
Joined: 2004-10-14 04:18am
Location: In pursuit of the Colonial Fleet

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Darth Lucifer »

My first instinct was to blame the private sector goons who work in these places, but after reading the article I now know that Federal Protective Services is equally responsible if not more so.
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14802
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by aerius »

The buildings are guarded by unionized government workers and ex burger flippers, hardly the most motivated or skilled workers around. It's hardly surprising that security is a joke.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Oskuro
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2698
Joined: 2005-05-25 06:10am
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Oskuro »

They X-Ray'ed a baby?!
unsigned
User avatar
Themightytom
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2818
Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
Location: United States

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Themightytom »

My brother does "Public Safety" and has described an alternate hierarchy in para-law enforcement. Something like

Police officers- first responders to all manner of debacle.
bodyguards guns and EARPIECE radios
private security guards get to carry guns and radios
Public safety does patrol gets flashlight and radio is trained in first aid and rudimentary fire prevention
Security does patrols, gets a flashlight runs for help if something is up
overnight attendants- some dude who stays awake all night

I don't know if he's full of crap or what, anyone who gets a patch and a flashlight instead of a badge and a gun would probably get the training to match and take their job about that seriously.

"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon
"ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10417
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Solauren »

I've known private security guards (as friends)

Aerius is over-crediting them. Some of them couldn't hold down jobs as burger-flippers.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
Kamakazie Sith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7555
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:00pm
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Kamakazie Sith »

Solauren wrote:I've known private security guards (as friends)

Aerius is over-crediting them. Some of them couldn't hold down jobs as burger-flippers.
In Utah security guards are paid around $10/hr, if they are armed security. If you're the unarmed variety you're paid around $8-$9/hr. You couldn't survive on your own in Utah on even the armed security wage. If you want competent people you need to start paying decent wages. So, really the problem is the industry.
Milites Astrum Exterminans
User avatar
Covenant
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4451
Joined: 2006-04-11 07:43am

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Covenant »

The issue with security is that it's never anyone's first option. If you want to be law enforcement you, may start as security, but you never want to stay in security unless you're not terribly bright or you want a piece of that lucrative management pay. It's also a very dull job with lots of very repetitive days, so you let things slip, as 99.9 percent of the time, nothing bad ever happens.

I did it for a while because I was unemployed, but I'm in a relatively affluent area, so there was more demand for intelligent, capable folks. In the city you have a very different pool to choose from. The only way to improve security is greater competition between firms (which is nearly nonexistant at the moment, some of these are really huge corporations) or greater automation. There's simply nowhere to get more qualified people from that will not move to some other industry. It's a lousy job, so your staff will be lousy.
User avatar
Pablo Sanchez
Commissar
Posts: 6998
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:41pm
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Pablo Sanchez »

Darth Wong wrote:I think this just goes to show how exaggerated the threat of Al-Quaeda actually is. If they were a tenth as dangerous as they are portrayed to be, they would have taken advantage of these kinds of security problems a long time ago (not to mention similar security problems at airports). They've had a lot of time since 9/11 to do that sort of thing, and they haven't.
After 9/11 the US response has killed or apprehended a large proportion of AQ leadership and dried up a lot of their sources of funding. There's also the fact that other Muslims began to despise them more publicly (this was instrumental in breaking the Al Qaeda-in-Iraq organization) which diminishes their capabilities further. Finally, every time Al Qaeda launched an attack, they pretty much had to write off everybody involved in it as a loss. The people who directly carry out the attacks are, of course, killed in the process, and any accomplices will either be apprehended quickly or become fugitives who are useless for future operations. For an organization that only has a few hundred serious members, only a portion of which are actually in cells in Western Nations, this is actually a serious problem. Terrorist cells are like disposable munitions, except that it takes several years of recruitment and planning to prepare one for use. Given the damage that the US has done to Al Qaeda, and the increased vigilance worldwide, it's possible that they no longer have the capability to carry out major attacks in areas where they would want to do so.

There's also the matter that Al Qaeda wants to carry out big impressive attacks, rather than blowing up a federal building in Helena Montana or something similar. So most potential targets are not in danger from Al Qaeda. I mean, what awareness does the average person from outside the United States even have of 90% of the country? They've seen New York, LA, and Las Vegas on TV, and they know that Washington is the capital. But flyover country?

The real danger to these federal buildings isn't Al Qaeda but the potential of Tim McVeigh-style domestic terrorists, who can move freely around the country and are actually more likely to be based out of areas that Al Qaeda wouldn't look twice at, and which might then be expected to have more lax security. I mean, people were all worried about Al Qaeda blowing up a "dirty bomb" in Times Square or something, but who ended up actually trying to build one? Some nazi prick in a small town in Maine.
Image
"I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
--The Lord Humungus
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by MKSheppard »

Pablo Sanchez wrote:Finally, every time Al Qaeda launched an attack, they pretty much had to write off everybody involved in it as a loss. The people who directly carry out the attacks are, of course, killed in the process, and any accomplices will either be apprehended quickly or become fugitives who are useless for future operations.
There's also the point that many of their operatives are quite simply useless in any sort of westernized society -- Stuart has pointed this out in the past on the old HPCA board on EZBoard.

Basically, someone who spends his formative years in a Pakistani Madrassa, rote memorizing the Koran is an excellent fanatical operative in Pakistan, not so elsewhere, since they simply aren't equipped to function in any western society to an extent.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Phantasee
Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker.
Posts: 5777
Joined: 2004-02-26 09:44pm

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Phantasee »

Question: What colour of skin did these investigators have? How many of them had beards? If you have a bunch of white dudes walking around with bombs in their suitcase, they're clearly on important business, and not terrorists.
XXXI
User avatar
Pablo Sanchez
Commissar
Posts: 6998
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:41pm
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Pablo Sanchez »

MKSheppard wrote:There's also the point that many of their operatives are quite simply useless in any sort of westernized society -- Stuart has pointed this out in the past on the old HPCA board on EZBoard. Basically, someone who spends his formative years in a Pakistani Madrassa, rote memorizing the Koran is an excellent fanatical operative in Pakistan, not so elsewhere, since they simply aren't equipped to function in any western society to an extent.
True, which is why their attacks in the West were all carried out by disaffected westernized Muslims. 9/11 was an action of their Hamburg cell, all four suicide bombers on 7/7 born in Britain, and Ramzi Yousef, the guy who bombed the WTC in 1993, had British education. Basically you have to carry out attacks with operatives who can work in that region and blend in. Most of Al Qaeda's leadership was derived from Muslims who traveled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, while operatives would be drawn from whatever region they were intended to work in. It's likely that Al Qaeda simply doesn't have enough people who are capable of working in the West to mount very many attacks. The people who carried out the 9/11 plot were selected in Hamburg, shipped to Afghanistan for advanced training, and then inserted into the US to get flight training before they finally attacked, a process which took over two years. This shows that they had no cell in the USA capable of doing it, hence the use of a German cell. There is also the matter of damage to their funding, training, and command systems, which would make the process of shuttling people around the world for training pretty much impossible. 9/11 was really an aberrant terrorist attack in a lot of ways, and the advances in international counter-terrorism structures have rendered future efforts on the same plan extremely unlikely.
Image
"I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
--The Lord Humungus
User avatar
Lonestar
Keeper of the Schwartz
Posts: 13321
Joined: 2003-02-13 03:21pm
Location: The Bay Area

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Lonestar »

aerius wrote:The buildings are guarded by unionized government workers and ex burger flippers, hardly the most motivated or skilled workers around. It's hardly surprising that security is a joke.
This strongly varies. You see a much higher quality of security at sites like the Pentagon, or ONI, where the security guards there are actually certified police. (No kidding, ONI is one Goddamn building in Suitland and they have their own police force). I suspect much of the losers mentioned in the article work at the DoL or something.

Ironically, when I read the thread title I thought they were referring to the half a dozen of so massive office buildings in Arlington that are technically part of the Pentagon complex. There's nothing on the outside to indicate that some serious shit goes on inside...except for the hundreds(thousands?) of servicemen walking around a crowded urban area with nothing preventing some jackass pulling up to the curb 10 ft from a building and repeating OK City. :roll:
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
User avatar
Aaron
Blackpowder Man
Posts: 12031
Joined: 2004-01-28 11:02pm
Location: British Columbian ExPat

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Aaron »

LordOskuro wrote:They X-Ray'ed a baby?!
Well it's not like it's going to kill the kid, it's cumulative which is why folks who work around radiation wear dosimeters. I'd be more afraid of the kid getting stuck in there, most of the ones I've seen at airports aren't very high.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Image
User avatar
Enigma
is a laughing fool.
Posts: 7777
Joined: 2003-04-30 10:24pm
Location: c nnyhjdyt yr 45

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Enigma »

Security in federal buildings in Ottawa are not that much better if not worse than what is stated in the OP article. In the seven years that I've been a delivery driver, I've been to practically every federal building in and around Ottawa and I can tell you that you that if I was some sort of bomber, I could have used my car as a bomb at about 90% of those buildings and this includes the Parliament buildings (I've driven on the Hill at least three times since 9\11 and only once was I escorted by the RCMP. It is easy and all you need to do to access the buildings is to be a courier. Day one, apply. Day two, training. Day three, free to pick a building to blow up.

There was only two buildings in Ottawa that did vehicle inspections but they could be easily fooled. Unfortunately, to properly secure every federal building, the government would have to probably at least triple the budget needed to secure their buildings adequately. That would include replacing the current commissionaires with those who are not over 70\obese\or the combo of the two.
ASVS('97)/SDN('03)

"Whilst human alchemists refer to the combustion triangle, some of their orcish counterparts see it as more of a hexagon: heat, fuel, air, laughter, screaming, fun." Dawn of the Dragons

ASSCRAVATS!
User avatar
Stuart Mackey
Drunken Kiwi Editor of the ASVS Press
Posts: 5946
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:28am
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Stuart Mackey »

aerius wrote:The buildings are guarded by unionized government workers and ex burger flippers, hardly the most motivated or skilled workers around. It's hardly surprising that security is a joke.
I am a security Guard. If this lot are anything like the NZ security industry, they are likely poorly trained (if at all), badly paid have no understanding of why their job exists and probably don't give a fuck. I blame the management, because that's generally what the problem is in security, in my experience.
Via money Europe could become political in five years" "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal"

Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet
--------------
User avatar
Zed Snardbody
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2449
Joined: 2002-07-11 11:41pm

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Zed Snardbody »

I'd point out that FPS is trained as law enforcement. There is a bit of sentiment that security duties are above them.

X ray training it kind of hit or miss if you're not doing it everyday, thats one of the reasons the US Secret Service of all people, uses TSA for event screening because they do that kind of thing day in day out and for the most part have more experience.
The Zen of Not Fucking Up.
User avatar
Themightytom
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2818
Joined: 2007-12-22 11:11am
Location: United States

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Themightytom »

Phantasee wrote:Question: What colour of skin did these investigators have? How many of them had beards? If you have a bunch of white dudes walking around with bombs in their suitcase, they're clearly on important business, and not terrorists.
Excuse me are you COMPLETELY unfamiliar with the Diehard series?

"Since when is "the west" a nation?"-Styphon
"ACORN= Cobra obviously." AMT
This topic is... oh Village Idiot. Carry on then.--Havok
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Simon_Jester »

Personally, I think that we should add the cost of all the "secure the building" crap we've done over the past decade to the damage done by terrorists. I have a horrible suspicion that the cumulative price in dollars and man-hours wasted on it exceeds the economic damage done by the destruction of the World Trade Center.

It's better to pay nothing for no defense than to pay much for a defense that doesn't work, and I get the feeling that western societies (especially the US) are in that position now.
MKSheppard wrote:There's also the point that many of their operatives are quite simply useless in any sort of westernized society -- Stuart has pointed this out in the past on the old HPCA board on EZBoard.

Basically, someone who spends his formative years in a Pakistani Madrassa, rote memorizing the Koran is an excellent fanatical operative in Pakistan, not so elsewhere, since they simply aren't equipped to function in any western society to an extent.
I would like to see a link to his statement, if possible; it sounds like a worthwhile read.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Ekiqa
Jedi Knight
Posts: 527
Joined: 2004-09-20 01:07pm
Location: Toronto/Halifax

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Ekiqa »

The joys of contracting out to the lowest bidder! No training, under paid employees who work multiple jobs to support themselves, and work long, boring shifts. Wages in the security industry haven't changed in years, representing an approx. 3% pay cut per year.

If they were actual government employees, they would be trained, better paid, more attentive and alert, and less likely to run porn sites at work to pay bills.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10417
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Solauren »

Ekiqa wrote:If they were actual government employees, they would be trained, better paid, more attentive and alert, and less likely to run porn sites at work to pay bills.
As a government employee, I find your confidence amusing.

Our security consists of 2 (okay 3 if you count shipping) entrances. Armed guards, usually 2, sometimes 3.

All you have to do is flash your id, and you're in. That's it. I've never had to take it out of my wallet.

The shipping area, to their credit, only let in expected vehicles, from approved companies that have to meet strict requirements (i.e employees must be background checked, etc)

It would not take much to obtain a ID pass, duplicate it, walk in with a briefcase, and do some serious damage.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
User avatar
Zed Snardbody
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2449
Joined: 2002-07-11 11:41pm

Re: Federal buildings poorly defended

Post by Zed Snardbody »

Ekiqa wrote: If they were actual government employees, they would be trained, better paid, more attentive and alert, and less likely to run porn sites at work to pay bills.
Tell that to TSA. Were federal but they decided to stick us on a diffrent pay system.

The Federal Protective Service are sworn law enforcement with private security underlings. I can bet money that what happened is one of the following. They stuck the private guard on these x rays and mags with FPS there for oversight and since they're real cops they went off to do real cop stuff and leave security to the white shirts that have squat training. Or the actual FPS officers were on x ray and since they're real police they never got trained on image recognition.

I'd also be willing to bet that the machines they're using don't have the simulated images installed to help keep the officers alert. I would also guess that there are no buildibg patrols or no clear procedures for challange.
The Zen of Not Fucking Up.
Post Reply