A border fence that never was: Virtual barrier proposed between the U.S. and Mexico began in a rush of optimism, ended in rhetoric and red ink

Houston Chronicle
January 23, 2011
by Stewart Powell

WASHINGTON — The invisible fence once envisioned along the U.S.-Mexico border was born in an era of political opportunity and optimism when then-President George W. Bush and congressional Democrats thought they could strike a deal on immigration reform.

The compromise meant paying for unprecedented high-tech security along the porous 1,969-mile border in trade for a legal path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.

But by the time the troubled "virtual fence" was canceled by the Obama administration five years later on Jan. 14, the first 53 miles of sensors, cameras, radar and towers at two locations in Arizona had become a $1 billion white elephant, a latter-day equivalent of the Reagan-era "star wars" defense that promised to intercept enemy warheads but never could.

The technical challenges of remotely spotting immigrants, smugglers and drug traffickers across rugged, open desert bled momentum and support in Congress.

The precipitous U.S. economic downturn shifted the political landscape from receptivity to reform in 2007 to outright hostility by 2010, the year Congress shelved legislation offering children of illegal immigrants a route to citizenship through college or the armed forces.

Deepening near-border warfare among Mexican drug cartels only stoked widening anti-immigrant sentiment, scuttling the bipartisan collaboration that briefly raised the possibility of long-sought immigration reform.

In the end, the demise of the virtual fence could be traced to technical glitches, domestic politics, turnover in leadership in the program, border landowners' resistance to a federal takeover and the inability of a newly created Department of Homeland Security to effectively manage its first long-term research and development project.

"The virtual fence was never meant to be a fence - it was rhetoric to enable officials in the Bush and Obama administrations to claim stepped-up enforcement to persuade Congress to act on amnesty for illegal immigrants," said James Carafano, a retired Army officer serving as a security analyst with the Heritage Foundation.

The fitful, five-year history of the invisible fence zigzagged between progress and problems in Arizona and efforts in Congress to pursue or sidetrack reform.

"We've been punting this issue down the field for almost a decade," said Rick Nelson, director of homeland security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's difficult to determine what the technical solutions should be … before we know what our immigration policies really are."

Complaints from Cornyn
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he pressed both the Bush and Obama administrations to remedy alleged "mismanagement" in the program to no avail.

"DHS spent a billion dollars on a failed project which did little to protect our border with Mexico," complained Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who played a key role in earlier negotiations for reform.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat and former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee's panel on border security, rejected suggestions the project was a debacle, calling it "a genuine attempt by two administrations and the private sector to make this work."

Bush, the former border-state governor, was eager in 2005 to strike a political balance between visible border enforcement and satisfying companies' appetite for workers, when his administration launched the so-called Secure Border Initiative Network (SBInet). Officials promised "the most effective mix of current and next generation technology" to stem the flow of people illegally crossing the border.

The GOP-led House quickly adopted the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act calling for enhanced border security including 700 miles of pedestrian fencing and vehicle barriers at the most popular illegal crossing points. With the 2006 midterm congressional elections only months away, the Republican-led Senate followed suit with its own version that went beyond the House to include a controversial pathway to citizenship.

Contract with Boeing
The Bush administration hoped to hasten a House-Senate compromise to create a temporary worker program by dispatching Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to sign a three-year, $2.5 billion contract with the Boeing Co. to build the invisible fence. The contract called for the defense contractor to fashion a prototype in Arizona, near Tucson and Ajo, with off-the-shelf components, 15 sensor towers, 13 communications towers, 400 unattended ground sensors and 12 miles of access road.

The timetable: Deploy the pilot project in Arizona as quickly as possible before covering the entire border by 2012 at an estimated cost of as much as $8 billion.

Yet despite the prospect of high-profile security enhancements, the House and Senate failed to resolve differences on a pathway to citizenship. Congress' last major attempt at overhauling immigration ended in January 2007.

Without legislative progress, the "virtual fence" increasingly drew congressional criticism over schedule delays, cost overruns and technical snafus. Congress' watchdog Government Accountability Office churned out at least 17 studies featuring criticisms of DHS management or Boeing's progress. One GAO investigation spotlighted 1,300 separate project problems over a 15-month period.

"I am not going to buy something with U.S. government money unless I'm satisfied it works in the real world," Chertoff told Congress.

By February 2008, the GAO was telling Congress the radar signal used to "target" people or vehicles was too slow to appear on U.S. Border Patrol monitoring screens and also was triggered by rain or other weather conditions.

"It appears that after nearly two years of an extremely expensive project, we are farther away from the deployment of a virtual fence technology than we were when the project was initiated," Cornyn warned the Bush administration's DHS leadership.

The 2008 presidential campaign ended any pretense of collaboration on immigration reform.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain called for barriers, walls and virtual fences, insisting: "The American people want our borders secured first and then we will address the issue of comprehensive immigration reform."

Democratic candidate Barack Obama vowed to "preserve the integrity of our borders" with added personnel, infrastructure and technology in a political minuet designed to enlist wary independent voters concerned about border security without alienating Hispanic voters.

Once in office, Obama reviewed the beleaguered project before initially vowing to carry on in hopes of winning congressional action on immigration reform. His administration cleared the way to resume virtual fence construction in Arizona by claiming that the technology challenges had been overcome.

"This is the initiation of the no-kidding, real, SBInet system," SBInet chief Mark Borkowski said in May 2009.

Fence funds diverted
Yet in 2010, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano launched a yearlong inquiry into the project. "Americans need border security now - not 10 years down the road," said the former governor of Arizona.

Within weeks of Napolitano's review, the administration outlined a 28 percent cut in spending on border fencing to $574 million. A month later, she diverted $50 million in economic stimulus funds to other security measures.

"Not only do we have an obligation to secure our borders, we have a responsibility to do so in the most cost-effective way possible," Napolitano said.

And the news just kept getting worse. The GAO alerted Congress that technical requirements for the virtual fence were being downgraded. The administration began increasing personnel to bolster border security, deploying unmanned drones and sending 1,200 National Guard troops to the border at federal expense, including 250 in Texas.

Napolitano in October scrapped a one-year renewal of the contract with Boeing in favor of month-to-month contracts. The last monthly contract expired Jan. 14.

"SBInet cannot meet its original objective of providing a single, integrated border security technology solution," Napolitano said. "There is no 'one-size-fits-all' solution."

And with that, the project came crashing down, and the $1 billion with it.

"The program faced challenges from the get-go," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, who plans to have his Homeland Security Committee panel look into suspected waste within the $56 billion-a-year Department of Homeland Security.

"The virtual fence was clearly a bipartisan idea that didn't work," added University of Virginia scholar Larry Sabato, author of The Year of Obama: How Barack Obama Won the White House. "The chances for immigration legislation in this divided Congress were always small - but now the prospects are even dimmer."


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/7394138.html

Feds are real borderland scofflaws

Arizona Daily Star
September 2, 2009
by Dan Millis

For the next year, border humanitarian Walt Staton will spend his Saturdays picking up trash. He'll also have regular check-ins with a probation officer, who will make sure he doesn't set foot on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, from which he's been banished.
Thirteen additional No More Deaths border humanitarians accused of littering will be arraigned today.

It is true that environmental destruction along the U.S.-Mexico border has run rampant lately, causing serious, perhaps irreparable, harm to the fragile ecosystems of the borderlands. However, neither Staton's upcoming year of toil, nor the hearings, jury trial or sentencing in federal court that he endured bring us any closer to environmental justice on the border.
They got the wrong guy.

The Sierra Club wrote a letter to the judge on behalf of Staton, voicing its opinion that "we do not believe that preserving imperiled species and the lands that support them is at odds with the efforts of border humanitarian groups."

We know the humanitarians regularly strive to remove as much trash as they can. We in the Sierra Club have come across them and even collaborated with them in our own efforts to clean up the borderlands.

But trash, though an eyesore, is hardly the big issue here. Our borderlands environment is constantly subjected to crimes far more heinous than littering.

If littering is the jaywalking or shoplifting of the borderlands, then the border wall itself is a much more serious crime. And the offenders are still on the loose.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is at the top of the most-wanted list. He used a little-known caveat of the Real ID Act to build hundreds of miles of border wall despite laws that may have prevented it. Among the 36 federal protection laws Chertoff waived like a cowboy hat: the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act.

Flooding, erosion, sedimentation, habitat loss and fragmentation have plagued natural areas along the more than 630 miles of border where barriers and walls now exist. Though inconvenient and ugly, ephemeral border trash poses a much smaller environmental problem than these massive threats to the security of our ecosystems.

If anyone deserves banishment from the Buenos Aires Refuge, it is Chertoff. Photos show a mountain lion blocked by his border wall there, and more than 50 acres of potential habitat for the endangered masked bobwhite quail, for which the refuge was established, have been lost forever in wall construction.

Also preying on border wildlands is South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. He slipped an amendment into the Senate version of the Homeland Security appropriations bill that calls for construction of more than 350 more miles of environmentally devastating border wall. True border environmentalists will do whatever it takes to remove that amendment from the bill in committee, probably late this month.

We hope, but do not anticipate, that Chertoff and DeMint will turn themselves in so that true environmental justice can be served on the border. In the meantime, Staton will be serving their time.

Dan Millis is appealing a September 2008 conviction for littering in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, for which he was given a suspended sentence. His case is separate from that of the No More Deaths group.

http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/307229

Former Bush Security Chiefs Find Terrorism Obsession Can Be Profitable

Americas Program
Center for International Policy
August 25, 2009
by Tom Barry

Contracts with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are spewing billions of dollars into private industry, largely to companies that also rely on Pentagon military contracts. In this new variation of the military-industrial complex a new revolving door is now in full swing.

Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, the two Republican stalwarts who served as the first two Department of Homeland Security secretaries, are now busy attracting defense, homeland security, and intelligence contracts in the country's rapidly expanding high-tech security complex.

Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania governor who was appointed by President Bush to direct the newly created DHS, has parlayed his government service into a lucrative career in business since he stepped down as DHS chief in November 2004. Soon after leaving DHS, Tom Ridge became president and CEO of Ridge Global, a global strategic consulting firm. He also has joined numerous corporate boards and advisory groups, including major military and homeland security contractors. (See Box: Ridge's Post-DHS Security Businesses).

Chertoff Group Covers Homeland Security

Michael Chertoff, former secretary of the DHS, has taken his portfolio over to the private sector. Homeland security is business—an estimated $200 billion in annual revenues—and the newly formed Chertoff Group is seeking a major stake in this booming industry.

As the latest homeland security consulting firm, Chertoff Group will be competing with two other security companies formed by top Republican Party figures: Ashcroft Group founded by former Attorney General John Ashcroft; and Guiliani Group, formed by former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudolf Guiliani. Although not specifically focused on homeland security, Ridge Global, formed by the first DHS secretary Tom Ridge, also has a piece of the expanding global security industry.

Chertoff Group describes itself as "a security and risk management advisory firm that counsels corporate and government clients addressing threats related to terrorism, fraud, cyber security, border protection, and supply chain security."

The Chertoff Group has a leg up on its competitors. The revolving door between government and industry has brought a half-dozen former high government officials of the Bush administration into the Chertoff Group.

Not only does it count on the political and business connections of Chertoff, the new firm has a roster of five other former government officials that can translate government experience and inside information into lucrative industry contracts.

Chertoff boasts, "Among the six of us we pretty much have all of those things in DHS, in DOD, and the Department of Justice, law enforcement, and finally, in the intelligence community. So we have pretty much every element of homeland security covered."

The Faces of the New Homeland Security Complex

Chertoff's associates who will be covering all the elements of homeland security business include figures with long experience in intelligence, industry contracting, and international banking.

Chad Sweet, Chertoff's chief-of-staff at DHS, cofounded the Chertoff Group and will direct the firm's operations. According to his company profile, Sweet worked at DHS "to restructure and optimize the flow of information between the CIA, FBI, and other members of the national security community and DHS. Mr. Sweet also supported the Secretary during numerous operations to detect, disrupt, and respond to terrorist plots both in the United States and overseas."

Before joining DHS, Sweet was a vice president at Morgan Stanley and then at Goldman Sachs, with a special focus on international investments. Sweet came to Wall Street after "having helped to fight the threat of Communism" at the CIA, where he was in the agency's Directorate of Operations.

In his new position, Sweet "utilizes his unique background in intelligence, homeland security, and investment banking to provide M&A advice to companies wishing to expand within the defense, aerospace, and security industries, and to help private capital groups evaluate investment opportunities within the sector."

Other principals at Chertoff Group are also former government heavies, including former CIA director (2005-2009) Michael Hayden, who also directed the National Security Agency (NSA, 1999-2005); DHS deputy Paul Schneider (who prior to his position at DHS was head of acquisitions for NSA and the U.S. Navy); Ret. Admiral Jay Cohen, who was DHS director of science and technology and previously the Navy's technology chief, and Charlie Allen, who was the intelligence chief at DHS and, according to Michael Chertoff, "pretty much head of everything you could be for the CIA and head of national collections."

The New Business of Homeland Security

DHS' private contracting provides one look at the new homeland security business. In large part, it's an offshoot of the military contracting industry. DHS's top 10 contractors, for example, include Boeing (ranking first), General Dynamics, SAIC, L-3 Communications, and Lockheed-Martin.

Also prominent among DHS contractors are information systems and computer technology firms, such as IBM, Accenture, Unisys, Booz Allen Hamilton, and Siemens. Also figuring prominently among the top DHS contractors is Wackenhut, a more traditional security industry that provides custodial services for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Intelligence contractors represent another booming business in the new homeland security industry. According to an estimate by the Defense Intelligence Agency, as much as 70% of new intelligence operations by the federal government's intelligence apparatus, including NSA, are contracted out to private businesses.

The expanding homeland security industry also includes biotech, electronic surveillance, and cyber security firms—all of which are likely prospective clients of the Chertoff Group.

Fresh from DHS, Chertoff says that the Chertoff Group provides an especially well-informed perspective of the character and direction of the new homeland security industry.

HSToday, a new homeland security industry magazine, interviewed Chertoff shortly after he founded the new firm and observed that part of Chertoff's "new mission is to better define homeland security for the private sector and thereby increase investment opportunities."

Chertoff concurred with the HSToday editor's description of the firm's mission and went on to expound on the emerging definition and dimensions of the homeland security industry. Chertoff noted that there exists much confusion about what homeland security really is.

Having emerged directly from government the Chertoff Group has, says Chertoff, "a clear vision of what homeland security is." Here is his clarification, "It's not the same as defense, it's not the same as law enforcement, although it partakes of elements of those, as well as things that are neither."

Homeland security, Chertoff explained, is a blend of the military and the police/first responder sectors. He observed that there is a great need in the private sector "to fill the gap and cover a system of homeland security in a way that is end-to-end that is not covered by the defense community or the law enforcement community."

Chertoff asserted that there are "many great opportunities" for investment and "many great technologies" to apply to homeland security needs. Chertoff Group, he said, can fill the gap, define the opportunities, and pick the best technologies. Furthermore:

"As many of the principal architects of homeland security and the doctrine, we [Chertoff Group] have a pretty good feel for how to look at problems end-to-end and then to anticipate problems where there may be technologies that fit into that problem solution …. So, working with investors, defense contractors, and others who either want to organically grow into homeland security or want to make acquisitions, I think we've got a really unique value and perspective that we can add in terms of how things fit in terms of an overarching strategy."

"What sets the Chertoff Group apart," says Chertoff Group, "is the breadth of our industry knowledge, the depth of our experience, and the extent of our close contacts with industry leaders worldwide."

Ridge's Post-DHS Security Businesses Ridge Global, headed by former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, "provides strategic consulting services that advance the security and economic interests of businesses and governments worldwide." It offers "a team of talented professionals, drawn from high-level posts," with expertise in risk management, global trade security, event security, crisis management and communications, and technology innovation. In 2006 Ridge Global entered into a $480,000 contract with Albania to help the country "develop an overall homeland defense strategy. According an AP report, Ridge's "main priority" was "to help Albania meet its goal of joining NATO in 2008." It wasn't until after the media outed Ridge's relationship with Albania that the former DHS chief filed the required foreign lobbyist report with the Justice Department in 2008—two years after the one-year contract with Albania had ended. On August 7 Critical Mission Support Services (CMSS) announced that it contracted Ridge Global to help the company develop its "security strategy and international business plan." CMSS says it specializes in "providing governments and organizations around the world with mission critical services," including de-mining, logistics/procurement, security, and IT communications. In addition to tending to global security needs at Ridge Global, Ridge also is president of Thomas Ridge, LLC. Aside from developing his own security consulting business, Ridge after leaving DHS joined the corporate boards of Vonage, Hershey, Home Depot, and Exelon (the country's largest nuclear plant operator, including the infamous Three Mile Island reactor). In April 2005 Ridge also joined the board of Savi Technology, described as the primary technology provider for wireless cargo-monitoring for DOD. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. Homeland Safety Against Counterterrorism Liability Ridge recently got a new gig as senior adviser to the San Francisco-based Building Protection Systems Inc. (BPSI), where he will have the responsibility of advising the corporation on the marketing of its Building Sentry One product line. BPSI's Sentry One products are among the thousands of newly manufactured systems and technologies developed in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, forming a major part of a new DHS/DOD industry complex underwritten by government contracts and grants. BPSI, now advised by Ridge, recently announced that its Sentry One toxin detection technology has received the DHS stamp of approval. According to BPSI, Sentry One is the "first complete building protection system which has also received full Safety Act designation from the Department of Homeland Security for protecting buildings and public gathering places from an airborne chemical or radiological targeted terrorist attack or accidental release." What does this Safety Act designation signify? Fundamentally, it means that Sentry One is protected by the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (Safety Act), which was rushed through Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks to spur industry investment in counterterrorism and security technology. According to DHS, the Safety Act is intended to "encourage the development and deployment of new and innovative anti-terrorism products and services." This government liability protection also covers software and other intellectual property. It fosters this development not through government contracts but through government guarantees—shielding technology providers from liability lawsuits in the event of product failure during a terrorist attack. The Safety Act also spurred the creation of a firm whose sole purpose is to provide liability advice to homeland security industries. That's Safety Act Consultants, whose motto is: "We help organizations protect themselves from catastrophic liability following a terrorist event." The Safety Act Consultants firm explains the Safety Act this way: "The SAFETY Act is a little known and often misunderstood Federal Law enacted in 2002 as a part of the Homeland Security Act. This law grants unprecedented statutory immunities, liability caps; affirmative defenses for things used to identify, protect against, stop, mitigate, respond to, or recover from, a terrorist event. These can include products, technologies, services, facilities, designs, advice, actions, software, hardware, or other methods, procedures, or strategies used in helping prevent, respond to, or recover from a physical terrorism [sic] or e-terrorism act. BPSI's Mike Welden, referring to the Safety Act approval, said: "This elevated designation is another example of the expert validation that BPSI's systems keep earning. We are absolutely pleased that the DHS has issued BPSI technology full designation. It is a clear indication of the trust in our technology that lives will be saved during certain acts of terrorism and as a result our customers will truly benefit from the extended SAFETY Act liability protections." On July 30, 2009 DHS bestowed its Safety Act designation on the 300th anti-terrorism technology.

Chertoff Group Gets Down to Business

In a nod to the key role of Bush administration figures in the new security company, Chertoff Group states that it "provides business leaders and local government officials with the same kind of high-level, strategic thinking and diligent execution that have kept the American homeland and its people safe since 9/11."

According to its website, the Chertoff Group approaches the business from three angles: risk-management and security services, crisis management, and mergers & acquisitions (M&A).

The group's risk-management and security services division aims to cover everything from global strategy, border protection, infrastructure protection, biometrics, global commerce, disaster preparedness, information assurance, intelligence, counterterrorism, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear security. The firm promises to "guide you to the best sources for trained personnel and security technology."

One of the firm's first contracts involves a cyber security client, according to a Wall Street Journal article. Chertoff Group has also secured a contract with BioNeutral Group, which hopes to commercialize a chemical-based technology that will neutralize toxins.

"We are excited to engage former Secretary Chertoff and his firm to assist us in our endeavors; presenting our proprietary technology to the various markets including health, defense, and bio security," commented Stephen J. Browand, president and CEO of BioNeutral. "It is a privilege to have such an elite group represent our company and we are confident that they will play a significant role in the successful strategic introduction of our life saving technology."

Strategic Partnership with "PR Firm from Hell"

Chertoff Group, founded by former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, has formed a "strategic partnership" with the controversial public-relations firm Burson-Marsteller to carry out the crisis-management part of its homeland security business.

"No one knows crisis communications better than the team at Burson-Marsteller," states the Chertoff Group, and the partnership will "combine our extensive crisis management expertise with their broad crisis communications skills."

No doubt that Burson-Marsteller has extensive experience in what the industry calls "crisis communications"—spinning a business, government, or product failure so as to minimize damage to a company's bottom line or a government's global reputation.

Burson-Marsteller, now headed by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign pollster and strategist Mark Penn, has been called "the PR firm from Hell" by MSNBC's Rachel Madow, because of the firm's long track record in representing companies involved in major disasters. Says Madow (March 5, 2009), "When Evil needs public relations, Evil has Burson-Marsteller on speed-dial."

According to the Guardian in London, "The world's biggest PR company was employed by the Nigerian government to discredit reports of genocide during the Biafran war, the Argentine junta after the disappearance of 35,000 civilians, and the Indonesian government after the massacres in East Timor. It also worked to improve the image of the late Romanian president Nicolae Ceausescu and the Saudi royal family."

A recent corporate client of this "communications crisis" firm is AIG, the investment firm bailed out by the U.S. government with $163 billion of taxpayer revenues.

In the past Burson-Marsteller has provided communications remedies: after the Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown; for Union Carbide after the Bhopal gas leak that killed up to 15,000 people in India; and for British Petroleum after the sinking of the Torrey Canyon oil tanker. More recently, it has represented tobacco firms, European biotech industries that produce genetically modified food, and, according to Madow, for the Blackwater security services firm after reports of murders of civilians by its government-paid mercenaries in Iraq.

Chertoff Group is also going directly to the heart of the industry with its M&A division. "For deals in the security industry," the Chertoff Group says it "offers unparalleled subject matter expertise and contacts to give you the competitive advantage."

"We have overseen billions of dollars of technology development and acquisition for the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the National Security Agency, and the CIA. We have keen insight into which new technologies are likely to transform the landscape, and our experience allows us to predict which ones may be headed for obsolescence."

The firm sees a bounty of opportunities for consolidation in the new but "highly fragmented" homeland security industry. It promises clients to "help leverage economies of scale" and to "monitor and manage target companies during periods of transition," reminding security companies that "it pays to know what we know before you decide on a merger or acquisition."

Pumping Up Homeland Security Business

Not relying solely on its industry contracts, the Chertoff Group is also benefiting from a trail of media interviews and media events that bring the firm's principals to the attention of prospective clients.

Chertoff and his DHS predecessor Tom Ridge, along with their entry into the homeland security industry, are releasing new homeland security books in September.

Ridge's new book is titled The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege ... and How We Can Be Safe Again. Michael Chertoff's new book, Homeland Security: Assessing First Five Years, will also likely help promote the Chertoff Group within the homeland security industry.

In his book, Chertoff argues that the Bush administration effectively secured the country because there haven't been any terrorist attacks on the homeland since Sept. 11—an assessment that the Chertoff Group regularly uses to sell itself.

But in the new book Chertoff occasionally exhibits a foreign policy perspective that appears dangerously aligned with the neoconservatives that drove the Bush administration's Middle East and counterterrorism policies. He predicts, for example, that the anti-Israeli Lebanese opposition group Hezbollah could surpass al-Qaeda as the most serious terrorist threat to the United States. Chertoff alleges Hezbollah is better equipped, better trained, and better politically positioned than Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

"Having operated for more than a quarter-century, (Hezbollah) has developed capabilities that al-Qaeda can only dream of, including large quantities of missiles and highly sophisticated explosives," writes Chertoff.

Alarmism about Hezbollah, whose principal grievance is with Israel, is a common denominator of neoconservative ideology. Although not closely identified with the neoconservatives, Chertoff is firmly rooted in right-wing thinking, particularly with respect to terrorism and the role of the judiciary. Chertoff is also closely associated with the right-wing Federalist Society.

Chertoff is also speaking publicly about the government's cyber security programs and intelligence gathering systems. During an August 7 presentation at the Potomac Officers Club in Washington, Chertoff promoted the deployment of Einstein III, the latest phase of a web-traffic monitoring system sponsored by DHS to detect and deter cyber attacks. The Obama administration has authorized the deployment of the latest phase of the program, which will screen government traffic on private networks and will be managed by the NSA.

Cyber security is perhaps the most lucrative source of homeland security business, which may explain the Chertoff Group's interest in the Einstein project. Among the reported private partners awarded contracts for the Einstein system (which was allocated $600 million in 2007-2008) are AT&T, which is the lead partner with NSA, L3 Communications, General Dynamics, Sprint, Qwest, MCI, and Verizon.

The first two phases of the Einstein monitoring program didn't measure up to government expectations. Nonetheless, the Obama administration is set to launch the latest version of the cyber security system—amid widespread privacy concerns resulting in large part because of NSA's unauthorized monitoring of private communications during the Bush administration.

Explaining the third iteration of the system, Chertoff told the Washington Post:

"Intrusion detection is like a cop with a radar gun on a highway who catches you speeding or drunk and phones ahead to somebody at the other end … Einstein III is a cop who actually arrests you and pulls you off the road when he sees you driving drunk."

While Einstein I and II were more protective than proactive, Einstein III rather than looking for predetermined indicators of cyber attack is empowered to look at the content of emails and possibly signatures including personally identifiable data. Millions of emails that pass through government agencies as well as any person logging on to a government website would set off Einstein III.

Aside from privacy concerns, the effectiveness of such electronic surveillance in improving homeland security has been questioned by a wide range of critics, including congressional members and employees of NSA and DHS. Jesselyn Radack, homeland security director of the Government Accountability Project, calls for the administration to abandon the program, calling it "NSA's cyber overkill."

Outsourcing's New Hold on National Security

The homeland security business not only involves protecting communications and information systems from intrusions and attacks, it also entails extracting intelligence from monitored electronic communications. The Chertoff Group will likely serve these two sides of the intelligence/security business.

On August 20 Michael Chertoff and Michael Hayden, along with former CIA Director of Operations Jack DeVine (now president of the Arkin Group international crisis management group), led a discussion panel at the National Press Club on the privatization of intelligence. Neither Chertoff nor Hayden was identified in the NPC news release about the event as private contractors themselves who benefit financially from intelligence outsourcing.

Not surprisingly, all three former government officials who currently are in the private sector strongly supported intelligence and DHS outsourcing. Chertoff explained that the outsourcing of immigrant detention to the private sector was the largest component of DHS private contracting, which makes good sense because of the long time-lag in building federal facilities and because of the variable flow of immigrants. It would be "foolish," he said, to build an immigrant prison in western Arizona and then have empty beds if the immigrant flow switched to the southeastern United States.

Hayden described the CIA as a "blended team" of government employees and contractors, noting that "we used contractors as an integral part of our workforce."

Tim Shorrock, author of Spies for Hire: The Secret World of Intelligence Outsourcing, says that "private contractors are operating in the most sensitive areas of intelligence." According to Shorrock, "with the post-September 11 hikes in intelligence spending, spying for hire has become an industry worth nearly $50 billion a year." With the Chertoff Group's close ties to the CIA and NSA, this huge intelligence outsourcing budget will likely form an important part of the firm's revenue stream.

The homeland security industry is emerging as the country's fastest growing government-industry complex. It's an industry where Chertoff and an array of ex-Bush administration officials are playing leading roles.

While the full extent of the influence and power of the new homeland security complex has yet to be determined, it is worrisome to consider that the complex's leading architects are former government officials responsible for the USA Patriot Act, the border wall boondoggle, massive unauthorized domestic surveillance, and disastrous intelligence scandals of the Bush years.

The increased outsourcing of homeland security and intelligence operations also raises pressing concerns about who is truly in charge of our security—industry or government. But with security being viewed as a new profit sector, our national interests and security will likely lose out to the interests of investors and security consultants like Ridge, Hayden, and Chertoff.

Tom Barry is a senior foreign policy analyst with the Americas Program at the Center for International Policy in Washington, DC. He blogs at: http://borderlinesblog.blogspot.com/.

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6382

Michael Chertoff on His New Firm

Homeland Security Today
June 1, 2009
interview with David Silverberg

April 28, 2009

Offices of Covington & Burling, Washington, DC.

Q: Tell me about The Chertoff Group.

We just opened our doors in the last couple of weeks. There are six principals. We’re in the process of negotiating to add two or three senior staff people to fill out our roster. We may bring in an additional principal or two in the not-too-distant future.

But right now it’s myself as chairman and founding principal, Mike Hayden, Paul Schneider who was, as you know, my deputy before that was head of acquisition for NSA and the Navy in the Clinton administration, Admiral Jay Cohen, who was head of technology and before that head of technology for the Navy, and Charlie Allen, of course, who was our head of intelligence and before that was pretty much head of everything you could be for the CIA and was head of national collections. Finally, Chad Sweet, who was my chief of staff, a former Goldman Sachs banker and before that a government person, is our chief operating officer. A person who is hands-on and chief of operations.

The idea is that we wanted to bring together a really unparalleled team of experienced homeland security architects and people who could look at the issue of homeland security as broadly as possible, including the intelligence side, the acquisition side, the technology side, the policy side and the operations side. And among the six of us we pretty much have all of those things in DHS, in DoD, and the Department of Justice, law enforcement and finally, in the intelligence community. So we have pretty much every element of homeland security covered.

Q: Who are your potential clients?

Let me take a step back and ask: What is homeland security? We in the government and those who have spent a lot of time on this do have a clear vision of what homeland security is and we understand it’s not the same as defense, it’s not the same as law enforcement, although it partakes of elements of those as well as things that are neither.

What you find when you get out into the private sector, and I found this pretty rapidly after I left, is that there’s a lot of uncertainty in the private sector about what homeland security is. In fact, there’s a lot of uncertainty in foreign governments about what homeland security is. They know they need it but they’re not quite sure what the doctrine is, how it differs from defense. Well, we know that you’re not going to treat every homeland security problem like a military problem because you’re not going to use the military to police your own country.

At the same time, the nature of the issues that you deal with are broader than just police issues or emergency responder issues. There’s an obvious need to fill the gap and cover a system of homeland security in a way that is end to end that is not covered by the defense community or the law enforcement community when they’re [consulted?]

So that was really the felt need and perception and my experience talking to people in the hundred days that I’ve been out has been to confirm for me that the people feel the need to have clear doctrine and an understanding of what the nature of homeland security is and we haven’t got that in the private sector and they’re looking to get that.

What that translates into in a concrete level is a number of different opportunities. One is the opportunity of people who want to invest in homeland security, whether they are people in the defense space or people who are in business in general and they’re not quite sure how to evaluate the investments. There are many great opportunities out there, many great technologies but picking an isolated technology doesn’t tell you how it fits into the system or whether it’s a value or not. Some technologies may be great but they may not perform a [?] function.

As many of the principal architects of homeland security and the doctrine we have a pretty good feel for how to look at problems end to end and then to anticipate problems where there may be technologies that fit into that problem solution in a way that’s not just throwing technology at an issue but fits into an integrated scheme to accomplish a mission. So, working with investors, defense contractors and others who either want to organically grow into homeland security or want to make acquisitions, I think we’ve got a really unique value and perspective that we can add in terms of how things fit in terms of an overarching strategy.

On the other side of the spectrum, obviously, there are also those who worry about their own security, whether corporations, state and local governments, international entities, even including some foreign governments and they want to understand: How do they protect themselves, whether against physical threats, cyber threats or a combination of the two. It can be against all kinds of hazards, not just against terrorism. It can be transnational crime, it can be disasters, it can be swine flu. And so where we, again, have a special perspective, is because we understand the entire 360 perspective, the kinds of threats you face and how you respond to them. I think we have the opportunity to advise people on those kinds of challenges.

I was talking to someone today, a potential client, about how they look at setting up their business, a particular global business. There are certain obvious things they need to think about but there are certain things that aren’t obvious and often people who are experts in particular areas focus on the threat to the area of their expertise, but no one stands back and looks at the entire enterprise and says: “You know, you’re looking at this, but you’re not looking at this.”

For example, in the area of cyber: People might think about how they’re protecting against a network intrusion but they’re not thinking about a physical failure, whether it’s a natural disaster or some kind of physical attack. So again, because of the breadth of our experience and skill set in the area, I think we bring a special perspective to those kinds of problems.

Q: Do you have a client roster already?

We have some clients who—I’m not going to publicly disclose—but we’re working with clients on both the acquisition or entry-to-the-marketplace side, and the protection side.

Q: Can you say how many?

I don’t want to say.

Q: Are you incorporated?

We’re incorporated, we moved into our new space about a week ago, we’re actually, our website is being built, we’re about to get our new phones, and a special phone, lines, and we just got our service for our electronic communications. So we’re launched and we’re ready to move down the runway.

Q: Whom do you consider your competition?

There are a lot of people with experience and people tend to orient themselves in different ways. There’s a very fine firm, for example, who work in the area of law enforcement consulting and there’s a little overlap. There are a number of firms that do political risk and we are going to do some of that and again, there’s going to be some overlap. There are some firms that do some defense and again, there will be some overlap.

I think what’s a little unusual about us is the number of people and the range of skill sets in one place. When we thought about setting this up, I didn’t want to be just a former secretary of homeland security, a former Department of Justice [official] adding a couple of staff. But I thought that there would be real value of complementing my experience with the experience of leaders in the area of intelligence, cybersecurity, acquisition technology because there are people who …some of our principals are deep in some areas, some are deep in other areas but among us we cover the waterfront about as well as anybody that I’m aware.

But there’s a lot of fine firms out there and we look forward into entering into the space.

Q: Did you think of joining an existing firm like Ridge or Cohen?

I thought about joining an existing firm but it was kind of interesting and exciting to think about forming a firm of my own and recruiting principals and being able to devise a firm culture from the ground up. And the culture that we have is one that is—without getting into the details—in terms of the way we’re organized and in terms of compensation, is focused on a team effort. The idea is to bring multiple perspectives and skills to problems and to work collaboratively. That’s kind of how we did it at the department when I was there. I think it’s the wave of the future in terms of modern businesses and I think it gives us a much more rewarding experience from a personal standpoint but also creates a better client experience because the client knows that everybody’s committed to producing the result.

We’re also not a highly leveraged firm. We’re not looking to have a few principals and then a huge team of junior people. We’re more like—I describe this as a cylinder. We have a pretty high number of principals relative to the size of where the firm is going to be because we’re really looking to add intellectual capital, not to just grind out a lot of paperwork or just to churn hours but to come in and provide high-value, focused advice based on experience with staff support but not with the staff overwhelming what the principals are doing.

Q: Tell me about your transition back to the private sector?

We’re sitting in my law firm now so the second piece of what I’m doing is senior “of counsel” at Covington & Burling. The one thing we can’t do in my consulting practice is practice law.

It’s been, really, an enjoyable transition for me. I was in private life and the private sector for eight years between the time that I left government in 1994 and when I came back in 2001 and I’ve always enjoyed working with clients and the different kinds of client problems and challenges. And, of course, in this new endeavor I actually built a business, which is exciting. So although, obviously, the people I worked with at DHS were terrific and I miss a lot of the great experiences I had with them, it’s been a fascinating experience to make the transition into being an entrepreneur. And, taking a lot of skills and experiences, which I and my colleagues were able to hone over the last four years and translate those to benefit—on the private side—which I think also benefits the country, to be honest.

Q: Any one particular thing that you miss about being out of office?

Well, I used to be able to cut through the White House to be able to get from 17th Street over to 14th Street and I can’t do that any more—I can’t do it in my car.

Less facetiously, it was a great privilege serving the country. We got to work on enormously consequential things with really bright, committed people and I treasure that experience. I did it for four years and considering the prior four years, I really did it for eight years of public service; I’ve spent most of my life in public service.

I’m a believer that turnover is a good thing. It’s good for the individual because you get to recharge your batteries and it’s good for the government because you get fresh perspectives. So, from my perspective, I felt fulfilled in my four years as Cabinet secretary and I was in the right place to move on to do something else.

Q: What do you see as the upcoming trends in homeland security and industry and the way business is done?

What you’re seeing in the last three, four months is that we have not seen an end to history or an end to homeland security and there’s people taking the position: “Oh, we haven’t been attacked, time to move on.”

Well, first of all, the terrorism threat remains real. Pakistan is certainly experiencing a certain amount of disorder in the border areas and has worsened recently and it’s still back and forth and in the balance. That, of course, has very serious implications for homeland security in terms of expanding the safe havens for terrorism. We’ve seen piracy in Somalia and in the Indian Ocean. That’s not terrorism but it’s kind of a kissing-cousin to terrorism and it reminds you that, once again, ungoverned spaces create problems. We’ve seen the violence in Mexico, which is posing a real problem to the government of that country. I was talking about that the last couple of years in my tenure in DHS; we put together a response plan, a contingency plan and that has remained as urgent an issue as ever. We put together an extended pandemic flu plan and—what do you know?—in the last week we’ve seen a pandemic flu become a potential issue to be dealt with. And of course, other challenges: Transnational criminal activity, we’re getting into hurricane season. All these remain.

People think we’re in an economic crisis and therefore we can ignore homeland security, allowing themselves the luxury of believing that you only have to deal with one problem at a time. In fact, problems tend to come in waves and they tend to reinforce each other. For example, as this flu process moves forward, is it going to have an impact on the economy? How do we deal with that so as to minimize the impact on the economy? You don’t have of luxury of saying: “I’m going to deal with one issue or the other issue.”

I think that security remains urgent, I think that the flu outbreak is reminding businesses again of the importance of planning, planning for resiliency, planning for what do you do if people in fact stay home either voluntarily or because they’re told to stay home to minimize their travel or their attendance in crowded places and managing these issues is much easier if you have a plan and you’ve worked with a plan.

So, I get asked the question sometimes: “Don’t you think that people are not going to want invest in homeland security because it doesn’t go to the bottom line?” Nothing wipes out the bottom line more quickly than a disaster, whether it’s an act of terror or a significant criminal event, a cyber attack, or an actual disaster or a medical disaster. So it’s like putting your money in the bank and getting an insurance policy. If you want protect your assets, which I think goes very much to the bottom line, you’ve got to make sure you have your security protected.

I’m pleased that the department is continuing to move forward on many initiatives that we got underway, as of today—which is April 28th—it looks like the planning that was done with respect to pandemic flu is paying off in the way the government has responded. Obviously, we have to see how that moves forward. I think it’s important to support Mexico, which the administration is doing and I’m pleased to see that. So, in many respects there is good progress that my successor is making in building on what we’ve done at the department.

I’m particularly gratified that St. Elizabeth’s has got funded, now the department is going to get a headquarters that will make it easier to manage a large enterprise.

http://www.hstoday.us/content/view/8710/151

Wall Worries: Grijalva pushes the Department of Homeland Security to review the border fence's environmental destruction

Tucson Weekly
August 13, 2009
by Tim Vanderpool

Call it an expression of public will, or just political pandering; either way, you can't call the new wall on our southern border benign.

Cutting a daunting swath from California to Texas, it has degraded waterways, chopped up private property and wreaked environmental havoc by severing wildlife-migration routes and pummeling habitat.

Now, three years after the construction began, and with nearly 700 miles of the fence and barriers complete, Rep. Raul Grijalva is pushing for a fresh—some would say first—look at the environmental fallout from the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

On July 23, Arizona's District 7 congressman sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano urging her department to conduct a full analysis of those impacts, and consider steps toward repair. The letter was co-signed by 42 of his congressional colleagues.

Grijalva says the time was right, given that Napolitano hails from the borderland—she was Arizona's governor before succeeding Bush appointee Michael Chertoff last year as head of Homeland Security—and that the fear factor behind the fence has waned a bit.

"I sensed an opening," he says. "Before, when we'd bring this up, we'd hear, 'Oh, you're promoting terrorism,' from Chertoff and his minions. Anytime we'd even mention the idea of mitigation, study, monitoring, evaluation, we'd hear 'Aah, you're helping harbor terrorists.' They'd wave that bloody rag every time.

"There's a different attitude now," Grijalva says, "a professional attitude, not an ideological attitude. I know that Janet (Napolitano) wants to do the job to keep the border secure. But she's dealing with it in a professional manner and a policy manner, which, to me, creates an opening."

Homeland Security spokeswoman Sara Kuban declined to comment on Grijalva's letter, except to say that Napolitano would be in contact with the various members of Congress.

Meanwhile, Grijalva's request has drawn plaudits from environmentalists, including Dan Millis, coordinator of the Arizona Sierra Club's Borderlands Campaign. "To the Sierra Club, this is a very important and very urgent issue," Millis says, "and I definitely think the timing is good. I don't think a serious look at this has been taken yet, at least by the higher-ups in the Department of Homeland Security."

The letter to Napolitano expressed concerns "regarding mounting environmental and societal impacts related to border security infrastructure and operations." It also requests that the secretary work with other agencies "to create and fund a robust border-wide environmental monitoring program and to provide sufficient mitigation funding for damage caused by border security infrastructure and enforcement activities."

That this letter was dispatched with any optimism at all reflects the sea change since Chertoff's time. In his drive to complete the fence, he repeatedly brandished his congressionally granted authority to waive bedrock environmental laws—such as the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act—to keep fence construction humming. In many cases, he used the waiver as a threat, browbeating land-management agencies into abdicating their resource-protection responsibilities.

Southern Arizona's San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area could be a poster child for that abuse. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management cobbled together a half-assed environmental assessment of the fence's potential impacts—concluding that the Normandy-style barriers "won't impede animals or people, because they have enough distance from the ground up," according to a BLM spokeswoman. "They're really just to keep vehicles from driving through the riverbed."

But in hindsight, such kowtowing has "damaged" those agencies, says Stephen Mumme, a border environmental management expert at Colorado State University. "It has led to the impression along the border that they're not using sound science—that they were being heavily influenced by political considerations in the Bush administration and continuing even now.

"If anyone, they were responsible for saying—even if it was politically unpopular—that they needed to have a better sense of what's going on," Mumme says. "But in the last administration, I think it was politically dangerous for managers to say that."

Of course, Chertoff's frantic pace didn't occur in a vacuum. Even as the project rolled forward, there was a steady drumbeat from anti-immigrant right-wingers such as Glenn Spencer and his Arizona-based American Border Patrol. Spencer's group routinely flies along the border to monitor the fence's progress, and loudly complains when there is a slowdown.

That pressure hasn't entirely vanished; Grijalva's efforts come as the Senate is considering a measure to expand "pedestrian" fencing to the entire 700 miles of barrier mandated by the Secure Fence Act. This high steel fencing is meant to block people from walking across the line, and is far more extreme—and damaging to wildlife—than the vehicle barriers now lining much of the border.

But there's been scant attention paid to the enormous social costs inflicted by this security juggernaut. Consider the impacts endured by Texas families who have seen their property—much of it passed down through generations—sliced in half by the wall. More fallout has been felt in Nogales, Ariz., where downtown merchants last year were engulfed by floodwaters that had backed up behind a concrete barrier placed in storm drains by the U.S. Border Patrol.

Then there's the fiscal factor: Grijalva cites Congressional Budget Office estimates that the border barrier has cost taxpayers an average of $3 million per mile to build. Another 15 percent will be added for continuing maintenance.

But the cost to the environment is incalculable. According to biologists, damage to habitat and wildlife migration is impacting species ranging from tiny lizards to mule deer, bighorn sheep, coatis, bears and jaguars. That's exacerbated by damage to watersheds and riparian areas. Again, the San Pedro River could be a perfect example. Two years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a "temporary" vehicle barrier across the river near Sierra Vista, south of Tucson. The placement followed roughly two miles of fence already existing within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.

Groups such as the Sierra Club fought that fence, and lost. Meanwhile, the clock is still ticking, says Millis. He notes that the Department of Homeland Security recently transferred $50 million to the Department of Interior to help soften impacts upon endangered species along the San Pedro and elsewhere.

"But that's all off-site mitigation, basically trying to restore potential habitat for endangered species in the same quantities that it was lost along the border. It doesn't really address the big problems that are happening on the line every day, and that we have tons of pictures of—wildlife blocked by the wall, huge erosion problems in wilderness areas, etc., etc.

"Now there's a huge priority on getting the science in order," Millis says. "This whole thing was really just shoved down our throats."

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/wall-worries/Content?oid=1281501

Border Fence Documentary Comes To South Texas

Press Release
Viva Zapata Films

A controversial new film about the border fence is coming to South Texas. The Wall, a documentary about the construction of a fence along the US/Mexico border will play two dates in Texas, July 17th at McAllen's El Cine De Rey and July 18th at San Antonio's Guadalupe Theatre. The film, which takes place in Arizona, California, and Texas, took 3 years to complete.

Director Ricardo Martinez captures many perspectives impacted by the fence. The Wall follows several law enforcement officials, border town residents, and the Minutemen as they each faced the reality of having a 25 foot Wall being built in their backyard. Border residents like Gloria Garza of Granjeno watch as the fence is erected and new problems start to arrive.

Ricardo and his crew even managed to follow and track several undocumented immigrants in Mexico as they prepared to cross the border, and ultimately climb The Wall. Using never before seen surveillance footage and night vision cameras, a mysterious and sometimes dangerous world emerges.

On the other side of the spectrum, the film features many border town residents and local officials. Small towns like Arivaca, McAllen, Granjeno, and Brownsville all make appearances in the film. Capturing a moment in time, the film tracks the No Border Wall Coalition's grassroots efforts to organize Rio Grande Valley residents against the fence. Showing the power of community, watch as Valley residents protest and unite to change the fence plan.

The filming was not always sunny and nice. Ricardo's film crew often had to scale back equipment and camp out deep in the desert to catch traffickers, immigrants, Border Patrol, and vigilante groups on camera. Vigilante groups like the Minutemen make a particularly unsettling appearance in The Wall as Martinez captured a few of them making some 'controversial' statements about the US and Hispanics.

At one point, the film crew traveled to Altar, Mexico to interview immigrants preparing to cross the border illegally. Made up of 'huespedes' or safehouses, the town was essentially run by the Carteles in the area, which didn't reassure the film crew of their safety.

"Thinking back, that probably was against my better judgment, but I felt like it made a helluva story on camera," says Ricardo grinning. "The local priest and church basically told us as long as we stuck with him, we'd be fine. We did and in the end, it was actually kind of a nice town."

The film plays on Friday, July 17th at 8:00 PM at El Cine De Rey in McAllen and Saturday July 18th at 8:00pm at the Guadalupe Theatre in San Antonio. Tickets are $5. Q&A and reception follow. Screening Details and information can be found at thewalldocumentary.com or cineelrey.com.

For any questions regarding this press release, to review the film for your publication, or to contact the filmmaker email info@thewalldocumentary.com. To watch clips of the film visit thewalldocumentary.com, youtube.com/thewalldoc, vimeo.com/thewall, or friend our Facebook page!

Official Synopsis

In 2006, Congress passed The Secure Fence Act calling for the construction of over 700 miles of fence along the US/Mexico border. Fueled by the War on Drugs and the debate on Immigration Reform, politicians jumped at the chance to "secure our borders". They were not prepared for what followed.

Filmed over two years, The Wall, a feature documentary, chronicles the impact of constructing a border fence along the Southwest. From policy makers to citizens of border towns in Texas, Arizona, and California, the debate elevates as residents respond to having a fence built in their backyard.

Gloria Garza sat on her porch, in Granjeno, Texas. She was enjoying her stretch of land by the Rio Grande River, when a man from the Department of Homeland Security arrived with a piece of paper. He asked her to sign a letter granting permission to build a 25 foot wall on her property. She thought it was a joke.

In Nogales, Arizona, Sheriff Tony Estrada, completed his routine check of the border wall. Since the border fence had been built, violence and immigrant deaths are steadily rising. This is not a policy he could believe in, but few were listening.

Determined to stop immigrant crossing, the Minutemen had taken matters into their own hands. They patrolled the area intercepting immigrants and notifying border patrol. Armed with ammunition and an ideology, they openly advocated more fencing to help their objectives.

At the epicenter of this controversy, Wilfredo and Adan are undocumented immigrants with a lot at stake. Wilfredo is trying to get across the border and will have to pass several layers of fencing and security. Adan waits for his father who must make the same dangerous trip he himself took several years earlier. How will their lives be changed by The Wall?

Director, Ricardo Martinez brings The Wall to life; intertwining rare surveillance footage and controversial interviews. He and his crew often risked their own safety while filming.

At the forefront of the debate, the film includes commentary by The Texas Border Coalition, The Southwest Border Sheriff's Coalition, No Border Wall Coalition, the Minutemen, Border Patrol officers, congressional hearings, and more.

Supreme Court decision a 'tremendous blow' for border residents

Rio Grande Guardian
June 16, 2009

WESLACO, June 16 - The No Border Wall coalition has expressed disappointment with the announcement that the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear arguments in the border wall lawsuit brought by El Paso County and others.

“The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear arguments that the waiving of all state, local, and federal laws to build the border wall is unconstitutional is a tremendous blow for border residents and the principle of the rule of law,” said Scott Nicol, a spokesman for the No Border Wall group.

In April 2008, then Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff waived 36 federal laws in order to speed up construction of the border wall project. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was instructed to build thousands of miles of border fencing under the Secure Fence Act of 2006.

A lawsuit challenging Chertoff’s decision to waive the 36 federal laws was brought against DHS in June, 2008 by El Paso County, the City of El Paso, the El Paso County Water Improvement District No. 1, and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.

Frontera Audubon Society, the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor, and the Friends of Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge later joined the lawsuit.

El Paso County Attorney José Rodríguez contended that congressional waiver of authority, provided under Section 102 of the Real ID Act, without the opportunity for judicial review, was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Rodríguez also claimed it was insufficient to permit the Homeland Security Secretary to declare pre-empted every state and local law related to the waived federal statues.

“We are disappointed but not surprised by this outcome. While we feel that we had a strong case, competition for space on the Supreme Court’s crowded docket is high,” Rodríguez said.

“This decision now ends our pursuit of this case. El Paso County would very much like to thank Mayer Brown LLP of Washington, D.C., for their defense and support in this case. Mayer Brown litigated this case without any cost to the county.”

On September 11th, 2008 a Federal District Judge of the Western District of Texas granted DHS’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the merits of the case.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Frank Montalvo held that the waivers used by Chertoff to expedite the construction of the border fence were constitutional because “…Congress constitutionally delegated its authority in the Waiver Legislation.”

Montalvo further ruled that the waiver legislation did not violate the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because the waivers were issued with the intent to “preempt state and local laws, which would interfere with Congress’s objective to expeditiously construct the border fence.”
Rodríguez said although the appeal was rejected, he expressed optimism that the Obama Administration has demonstrated a willingness to consult with local communities on the fence and other border security policies.

No Border Wall is a grassroots coalition of groups and individuals united in the belief that a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border will do irreparable harm to the borderlands and the nation as a whole. The group is opposed to the construction of a border wall because it believes it will have “devastating consequences” on border economies, the environment, human rights, and U.S.-Mexico relations.

“We had hoped that the court would honor its obligation to examine the constitutionality of section 102 of the Real ID Act, which is an unprecedented power grab by the Executive branch, and which creates unequal legal protections for U.S. citizens that are solely dependant upon what part of the country one lives in,” the No Border Wall group’s Nicol said. “In this instance the Supreme Court shirked its duty, leaving the border without the benefit of the rule of law that is enjoyed by the rest of our nation.”

Section 102 of the Real ID Act allows for the suspension of all laws to build the border wall, stating, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.”

Nicol pointed out that no other U.S. citizen is granted this extreme power under any circumstance. “Even the president does not have this power to waive our nation’s laws, no matter what crisis may arise,” Nicol said.

Nicol said Chertoff knew that in building border walls he would be violating numerous laws. “Obeying the law is not voluntary, it is mandatory. In a nation of laws all laws must be respected, not just those that are convenient. Those laws were enacted to prevent the kind of damage that we see everywhere border walls have been built,” Nicol said.

Nicol said environmental groups in the Rio Grande Valley fear for the future of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. He pointed out that as it consists of individual tracts of native habitat linked by the Rio Grande, the Refuge creates a wildlife corridor, providing federally endangered species such as the ocelot and jaguarundi sufficient territory to find food, water, and mates.

Migratory birds also rely on it to rest and refuel on their annual journeys, as well as for nesting, Nicol said.

“The border walls that have been built, and those that are still under construction, slice through many refuge tracts and cut off others from the river. The wall is fragmenting habitat, blocking migratory pathways, denying animals’ access to fresh water, and isolating breeding populations of endangered ocelot and jagurandi,” Nicol claimed.

“Because the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were among the 36 federal laws that the former Secretary swept aside, none of the usual legal protections for these supposedly protected lands remain.”

Nicol said equal protection under the law is meant to be a fundamental right shared by every American. However, he said the effect of the Real ID Act is to make the legal rights of citizens who live near the border “conditional on the whims of an unelected Administration appointee.” Under the Act, the Homeland Security secretary cannot waive laws that protect citizens who live away from the border, only border residents, Nicol argued.

“When the Supreme Court decided not to hear these arguments without uttering so much as a word as to why, they shirked their duty as the final arbiters of the United States constitution and the principle of the rule of law that it enshrines,” Nicol said.

“This precedent bodes ill for the rest of the nation, as any manufactured crisis may be used to enact a similar waiver.”

Nicol speculated that a “broken” northern border may be the pretext for a new bill waiving laws along the Canadian boundary, or an “energy crisis” may provide a convenient excuse to do away with laws that prevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“The Supreme Court’s inaction will likely have repercussions beyond the destruction wrought by the border wall,” he said.

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=23

Court refuses to hear border fence case

The Hill
June 15, 2009
by Reid Wilson

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case that questioned whether the federal government could supersede state and local laws blocking a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

The case tested the constitutionality of a provision in a broad 2005 law that created national standards for state driver’s license requirements. The provision in question would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive local legal requirements that stand in the way of the 700-mile border fence.

Attorneys for the petitioners, led by El Paso County, Texas, argued the REAL ID Act constituted a delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch that amounted to an abdication of responsibilities.

The act allows DHS to circumvent the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act in constructing the fence. But it also gives DHS the "authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads[.]"

Congress established a limited and streamlined judicial review, which petitioners cited in their claims of unconstitutionality.

Under President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff approved two waivers that disburden fence planners of having to comply with "all federal, state or other laws, regulations and legal requirements" of construction.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan filed a brief for the Justice Department opposing the petition, arguing the county and local governments lacked the standing to bring the case.

The justices themselves took a considerable amount of time in mulling the case. The subject was brought up in conference eight times, most recently last Thursday, before justices voted not to accept the case. It is the second time in a year justices had declined to hear challenges to the border fence.

The court announced it would take up four cases, including one examining the constitutional limits on states when it comes to restoring storm-eroded beaches, in a case originating in Florida.

The court declined to hear another Florida case, which argued that five alleged Cuban spies could not get a fair trial in Miami because of anti-Cuban sentiment in the area.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/court-refuses-to-hear-border-fence-case-2009-06-15.html

Border fences make critics fear for the area's wildlife

Arizona Daily Star
March 15, 2009
by Brady McCombs

It could take years to fully comprehend the environmental toll of border fencing, but critics say it is bound to create problems for the land and wildlife.

The attempts by environmentalists and public-land managers to address their concerns were brushed aside early on by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who invoked a provision of the 2005 Real ID Act that allowed a waiver of environmental and other federal regulations for border projects.

And it wasn't long after that problems began cropping up.

In testimony last year, Tohono O'odham Chairman Ned Norris Jr. told a House subcommittee that near Douglas and Naco, construction workers dug up fragments of human remains in Tohono O'odham ancestral lands.

He also noted that during the construction, some birds died when they got stuck in 12-inch-diameter steel pipes.

The Gila woodpeckers were confused by the pipes, which looked enough like a saguaro cactus that the birds flew into the open ends and became trapped, said Jeffrey Brooks, who worked as an archaeological and ecological construction monitor for a private company in the spring of 2008. The exact number that died is unknown, but it was probably as high 100, he said.

Now anecdotal evidence is showing that the fences are harming wildlife, said Matt Clark, Southwest representative of Defenders of Wildlife, a group that works to protect endangered species.

"They are encountering the wall, hesitant at the wall, being deflected away from the wall, in some cases hitting the wall or getting stuck in the bollards," Clark said. "Indications are that it is having the sorts of impact that we anticipated."

Those concerns include fragmentation of habitat; increase of wildlife disturbance by motorized vehicles that now have more access; and severing of migration and dispersal corridors for animals such as the jaguar, ocelot, black bear, cougar and coatimundi, all species that require large amounts of habitat, Clark said.

And there are other problems attributed to the fencing, including flooding at Nogales and Lukeville during the 2008 monsoon that was caused, or at least compounded, by border fences.

Border Patrol officials say the fencing is beneficial to the environment and wildlife because it is cutting down on the trash left behind by illegal immigrants.

Clark and others argue that a real assessment of the border fence's adverse impact will have to await the completion of a formal study by a neutral agency. So far, however, nothing like that has been started.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/284401

Bulldozing nature

February 14, 2009
San Diego Union Tribune
by Char Miller

President George W. Bush is history. But the past has a funny way of maintaining a tight grip on the present. Just ask anyone who cares deeply about the pristine remnants of Southern California's ancient landscape, such as the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area. Bulldozers are now rumbling through the sanctuary in eastern San Diego County, prepping the ground so that the infamous border wall can slice across its stunning array of desert scrublands, steep canyons and rugged high ground.

The small reserve – it encompasses only 18,500 acres – was established in 1999, but despite its limited size it is of crucial significance. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, San Diego contains the greatest number of threatened or endangered species in the continental United States and its high desert in particular is home to many of them. These include the Quino checkerspot butterfly, the arroyo toad and the Otay Mesa spreading mint. This often bone-dry terrain is also vital for migratory mammals such as the javelina, whose search for food, water and shelter knows nothing of national boundaries.

Sadly, this viable habitat and the rich biodiversity it has sustained for millennia are under attack. In December, Michael Chertoff, then the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, waived the Wilderness Act and a host of other protective legislation so that a contractor could scrape clean this untrammeled area. Site preparation for the border wall's construction, which includes constructing a hardened roadway, has continued ever since.

Already, the impact is pronounced. Even in the unlikely event that the Obama administration quickly issues a stop-work order, and local environmentalists hope he will, the initial cuts for the road and fence are of such a magnitude, observed Nathan Trotter, a local activist who toured the area in late January, "that the resources needed to restore the area would be immense."

None of this destruction needs to occur. The Border Patrol itself did not think the wall was necessary in the Otay wilderness. Richard Kite, a spokesman for the agency's San Diego office, told reporters in 2006 after Congress passed the Safe Fence Act: "It's such harsh terrain it's difficult to walk, let alone drive. There's no reason to disrupt the land when the land itself is a physical barrier."

The EPA also cast doubt on the project. In a February 2008 letter to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, it indicated that the proposed plan was insufficient on two counts. It objected to "the filling of two well-developed riparian corridors in Copper and Buttewig canyons and has concerns regarding high potential for significantly increasing erosion in the watershed from the combination of road widening, new vehicle trail construction, fence installation on steep slopes, and fence installation across intermittent streams." The EPA predicted these intrusions would "have unacceptable adverse impacts under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, especially considering cumulative impacts from other border fence projects that are proposed in the Tijuana River Watershed. These impacts must be avoided to provide adequate protection for the environment."

Wilderness advocates were much more blunt in their denunciation of the administration's decision to savage the Otay – by blasting its canyon walls, trucking out more than 500,000 cubic yards of fill, and grading and leveling a 150-foot-wide swath on which to erect the wall.

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, lambasted the presidential decision: "Wilderness areas are designated by Congress specifically to protect sensitive places from projects like this road construction. This road sets terrible precedent and clearly demonstrates the dangers of granting the secretary of homeland security authority to waive any law in order to build walls along our international borders." As Matt Clark, Southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, asserted: "Such harmful impacts to wilderness characteristics and values are clearly inconsistent with the congressional intent of the law that established the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area in 1999. The waiver and the wall are an affront to our nation's laws and natural heritage."

The Bush administration ignored these principled arguments and in doing so the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area, like countless other sensitive ecosystems along the U.S.-Mexico border, has paid a heavy price.

We are paying, too: By compromising the Otay's historic function as wildlands and cutting off the javelina from its primeval habitat, and by serving as a tool for subverting national environmental regulations, the Bush wall casts a long shadow over contemporary American politics. What a grim and costly legacy.

Miller is visiting professor of environmental analysis and history at Pomona College in Claremont. He is author of "Gifford Pinchot and the Making of Modern Environmentalism" and "Deep in the Heart of Texas: Land and Life in South Texas."

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/feb/14/mz1sz14mille193035-bulldozing-nature/?opinion

No More Hope: DHS issues notice to proceed with border fence at park

Brownsville Herald
January 13, 2009

It looks like hope has run out for Hope Park.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a notice to proceed with the construction of the border fence that includes Hope Park near the downtown area.

Local officials were notified Tuesday that a notice to proceed with the border fence project had been issued.

The fence will run from an extension of Palm Boulevard to the Fort Brown Memorial Golf Course, which is off River Levee Drive, and will be in the areas of Hope Park near downtown Brownsville and the Gateway International Bridge, the notice reads.

Cameron County Judge Carlos H. Cascos said he didn't believe the land involved was county owned. He has often said that the DHS was going to move forward with the fence in the face of public opposition. Although the county had offered an alternative to the fence's construction plan, the DHS rejected its levee-fence proposal.

Brownsville Mayor Pat M. Ahumada Jr. could not be reached for comment.

Although no actual construction date has been scheduled, the cleaning of the area where the fence will be built is expected to begin soon, the notice reads.

No other information was immediately available.

Lloyd Easterling, spokesman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, could not be reached for comment.

The DHS news comes one day after Brownsville city officials agreed to join an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff's waiver of state and local laws in order to build a fence along the border.

The notice is similar to one released two weeks ago in which county officials were notified that site preparations were to begin in eight areas of the county.

These areas include Nemo Road and Weaver's Mountain near Harlingen; west and east Los Indios; La Paloma; Ho chi Minh-Estero, also near Harlingen; and the Riverbend Resort Water Tower and the Public Utilities Board fence line in Brownsville.

Last week, huge dump trucks could be seen traveling to and from the river levee near the Riverbend Resort Water Tower on Highway 281, where 1.6 miles of the fencing will be constructed.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/fence_93633___article.html/hope_notice.html