Archive for March, 2006

March 30 – April 5, 2006 Edition

BY TODD DAVIS
[email protected]

Homeland security dollars will keep fl owing out of Washington, D.C., and local companies and government officials are keeping their hands open.

Companies offering specialized technology, communications, security consulting, preparedness training and high-tech manufacturing are finding new markets through the military, public safety, disaster relief and border security agencies.

With a twist of marketing – some simply added “homeland security” to their list of offerings – opened to a new wave of government contracts and grants following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. For others, homeland security was a field in which they already were deeply involved.

For Wave Dispersion Technologies of Sylvan Lake, that started after the bombing attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. The company’s floating barrier system is a series of break walls that can be anchored along the outer perimeter of naval installations and seaports.

The barriers can be rapidly deployed or removed, said Wave Dispersion President Jonathan Smith. Security and military applications make up about 70 percent of the company’s sales, Smith said, and sales prospects remain strong.

“It’s basically (government agencies) call us as opposed to us having to pitch the product to them,” Smith said.

The State of Michigan last year received and distributed more than $50 million in Homeland Security and emergency response grants from federal government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security. Of that, Oakland County received $4.39 million in homeland security-focused law enforcement grants.

Since 2001, the county has received nearly $11.28 million. In all, the federal Department of Homeland Security has doled out more than $8.6 billion in grants through state governments in the wake of Sept. 11.

But the way money is directed to Oakland County may change. The state is considering combining homeland security grants under one entity, the Urban Areas Security Initiative, that includes Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw, St. Clair and Monroe counties, plus Detroit.

The current region, which includes Detroit and Wayne County as a higher risk targeted area, last year received $13.65 million in grant money.

Mike Sturm, the administrator for the Oakland County Emergency Preparedness Unit, said the newly drawn region will receive $20 million in grants in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That will mean less for Oakland County than in the previous years.

“It’s a battle we’ve been fighting all along,” said Sturm, whose agency assists local municipalities and emergency response groups with natural and man-made disaster preparedness.

Oakland County has focused its spending on bolstering communications, unifying command and control, and training first-responseunits.

“To properly address a real disaster, it’s critical to have command unified,” Sturm said. “You can’t have five commanders in charge at the scene.”
The county also has used grants and its own funds to buy three new hazardous material response vehicles, and it has funded systems to improve mutual aid response preparedness.

Many companies have sprung up to provide services in the areas of technology, “vulnerability assessment,” security consulting and training, Sturm said.

“There’s been a lot because of the grants,” he said. “Some are excellent, some are good, and some are … just stuff.”

One of the newer companies is Patriot Services Corp. of Clawson, started in March 2004 by former military security assessment analyst Steve Potter and former Oakland County Undersheriff Tom Quisenberry. It sells risk assessment and preparedness training for schools, municipal police and emergency units and hospitals.

Patriot has grown to five fulltime and 10 part-time employees who are mostly specialized consultants.

The company has found clients in states as far away Florida, New Jersey and Nevada. Still, about 70 percent of its revenue is generated in southeast Michigan.

“If you were to define the industry in terms of ‘homeland security,’ it’s in the infancy stage,” Potter said, because grants authorized in 2003 only recently wrapped up distribution.

■ Todd Davis is a freelance writer.

Shippers fear port security measures would disrupt commerce

By Chris Strohm, CongressDaily

While lawmakers in both parties intend to move quickly to pass legislation aimed at improving maritime and cargo security, officials with major shipping and container companies fear some new rules could be disastrous for international commerce.

Industry experts worry that new regulations for screening and inspecting cargo could place odious and costly requirements on shippers, and they are urging lawmakers to be cautious.

“If you delay the supply chain to the extent that prices go up and the cost of doing business with America is too high, and you have several shipping companies that can’t upgrade their security, then the terrorists have won,” said Noel Cunningham, a principal at The Marsec Group, which consults maritime companies and port operators.

Full Story

Eight Sri Lankan sailors presumed dead in Tamil Tiger Suicide blast

Mar. 25 (AFP) – Eight sailors from the Sri Lankan navy were presumed killed Saturday when a group of suspected Tiger rebels blew themselves up and sank a navy gunboat that approached their trawler, the military said.

Six suspected rebels were killed in the blast.

The defence ministry said the sinking of the navy craft was a violation of a truce arranged by Sri lanka’s peace broker Norway and lodged a complaint with the Scandinavian ceasefire monitors.

“The suicide-style explosion carried out by the crew of the trawler causing damage to a naval vessel and claiming the lives of navy personnel is a violation of the ceasefire,” the defence ministry said in a statement.

Full Story

I attended and presented at Technology Training Corporation’s Maritime Security Conference in San Diego today. I was certainly impressed with the conference execution, quality of attendees and speakers. I would like to extend a special thanks to Brad Barrett and his staff for including Wave Dispersion Technologies on the agenda and putting on a very professional conference.

I was pleased and impressed by the quality of questions that I was asked from the audience following my presentation entitled: “Floating Security Barriers.”

Layered Defense

One of the questions was from a gentlemen from Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) who helped to clarify the rational for deploying floating security barriers. He wanted to ensure that everyone understood that floating security barriers are best deployed in conjunction with a layered defense that includes armed security guards, harbor patrols, electronic and other security solutions. Without a layered defense system in place, the efficacy of the floating security barriers can be greatly diminished by a determined terrorists efforts to circumvent a stand alone system.

Changing the Rules of Engagement

In addition, the gentlemen from APL wanted to emphasize the fact that floating security barriers are also highly effective when protecting vital assets that require a need for a change in the rules of engagement (e.g. use of deadly force authorized).

Comments from the Audience about Competing Systems

In addition to the comments from the APL, a gentlemen from Northrop Grumman was very helpful in pointing out some of the deficiencies in one of the competing floating security barrier system deployed in San Diego. It is against Wave Dispersion’s policy to publicly critique its competitors, but the comments from the Northrup Grumman staff were certainly appreciated.

Support from the Marketplace

Overall, I left the conference feeling that I learned, made new quality contacts and felt the marketplace is better informed about the WhisprWave® line of port security barriers and buoys.

There as was an interesting piece in Newsweek this week commenting on the political comment surrounding the Dubai Ports deal entitled: Save Us From Our Politicians The controversy over Dubai Ports World was a great victory for them—but a defeat for candor and sensible security and economic policies.

The company’s withdrawal last week can be seen as a triumph of public opinion. Or it can be acknowledged for what it is: a major defeat for the United States, driven by self-indulgent politicians of both parties who enthusiastically fanned public fears.

Leadership in a democratic society requires a willingness and ability to challenge and change public opinion when it is based on misinformation, no information, prejudice or stupidity—as it was in this case. There never was a genuine security problem. The Dubai company wouldn’t have “taken over” the U.S. ports. It simply would have run some terminals. Cargo would still have been handled by American, unionized longshoremen. The Coast Guard and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency would still have been responsible for port security.

Earthen Dam in Hawaii Bursts, Killing One

By JAYMES SONG, Associated Press Writer

KILAUEA, Hawaii – One person was killed and up to seven others were missing after a rain-weakened dam failed on the western Hawaiian island of Kauai, sending a wall of muddy water, trees and debris down the mountainside and prompting fears about the safety of other dams.

The water cut off access to and from thousands of rural houses and luxury condominiums along Kauai’s rural north shore. At least two homes were swept off their foundations and several hundred feet of the island’s main highway were washed out.

“Sounded like a 747 jet crashing here in the valley, all the trees popping and snapping and everything,” said John Hawthorne. “It was just a horrendous sound, and it never quit.”

Search crews recovered the body of an unidentified adult male. Up to seven people were missing and residents said one family whose home was swept away is missing several children.

Full Story

Harbour protection
Tor Knudsen, Director of Research,
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, FFI
View the slides …

Introduction

In recent years, international conventions have changed our harbours. It is not many years ago when it was possible to stroll along the quays and watch foreign ships at he piers. Now guards and strong fences prevents we are from getting close by. At the seaside, however, there is no change. It is still possible to use your own boat and get as close as you want to any ship. Does this make sense?

US Navy has experienced severe damages from small boats loaded with explosives, that where driven into ships in harbours. Swimmers can easily approach ships from under water. Before, you could easily spot the bubbles from the aqualung when he approached the ship. Now closed-circuit rebreather systems are available on the civilian marked, and used by civilian divers for not disturbing the fish when making underwater movies. Therefore, you may not be able to spot a diver on his way to the ship, or an important underwater installation.

A diver can carry explosives, but only a fraction of what is possible to place onboard a small fast vessel. However, the diver can place the explosive in an area where it can do the greatest harm.

Ships can easily transport illegal goods and equipment without the knowledge of the crew, if the goods are outside the ship, for example in streamlined containers attached to a ship hull. Such an operation must probably be done when the ship has stopped, most likely in a harbour.

It is easier to retrieve the transport containers. A release signal can be sent so that the container falls off in a place where it can be retrieved without suspicion.

There are therefore many reasons for requiring that in the future, harbours shall be protected not only from the landside, but also from seaside.

Protection from surface vessels
There are several systems on the marked. All includes heavy floating fences below and above the sea surface. The aim is to stop even a high-speed pleasure boat from penetrating the fence. If the quay is open to the sea the whole length of the ship must be protected, and this method becomes both costly in acquisition and operation.

However if the harbour lay out has long quays where the sips are placed one after another with a narrow opening to the sea it is much easier to protect the ships from the sea side.

New requirements may therefore determine which harbours will survive in the future.

Conclusion
At present harbours are protected on the land side. On the sea side there are at present no adequate systems for detecting underwater activities and subsequent prosecution of detected intruders.

Full Story

Port Security and Foreign Investment
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
Full Transcript of Testimony

Statement of Dr. James Jay Carafano
Senior Research Fellow

The Heritage Foundation

Before the House Armed Services Committee

In my testimony today I would like to:

1. Emphasize why secure ports are essential to the nation
2. Describe the significant security threats the U.S. faces today and in the future
3. Assess the impact of foreign-owned assets on existing and emerging threats
4. Identify the critical problems that must be addressed to enhance port security
5. Propose the next steps that this Committee take to make the seas safer

Why Do We Care?

Almost one-third of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) is derived from trade. As you know, 95 percent of American overseas trade traffics the maritime domain. According to the American Association of Port Authorities, $1.3 billion worth of U.S. goods move in and out of U.S. ports every day. In addition, many major urban centers (more than half of the U.S. population) and significant critical infrastructure are in proximity to U.S. ports or are accessible by waterways.

What Should We Worry About?

• Internal Threats from Rogue Actors
• The Growth of Maritime Criminal Activity
• The Lack of Visibility in Non-Commercial Maritime Activity
• The Maritime Domain as a Target and Facilitator of Threats against the Environment
• Anti-Access Strategies a Real Possibility
• Stand-Off Attacks from the Sea

What is the Impact of Foreign Investments on Future Threats?

Nationality and geography do not guarantee security, nor do they assure economic growth. The notion that merely precluding foreign ownership of U.S. assets offers a measure of security or saves American jobs is fundamentally flawed. Applying protectionist policies to homeland security would stifle innovation and increase costs, without making America any safer. The government’s role is not to decide how the marketplace operates, but to perform due diligence to ensure that vital national interests are looked after.

A review of the facts that are publicly available do not suggest that the sale would exacerbate risks in the maritime domain.

• Outsourcing Is Not the Issue
• Security Standards Will Not Change
• Not a Terrorist Gateway

What Should We Do?

Port facilities are just one of many aspects that should be considered in developing a comprehen­sive maritime security regime. The United States should approach cargo and port security from the perspective of a complex global system rather than attempting (and failing) to make ports and contain­ers impervious to terrorist threats. Ports are just part of a system, designed to move people and things quickly in immense volumes. The best way to secure a port is to keep bad things and bad people out of the port to begin with. And that means securing the system, not the port. That requires a system approach to security. As with much of homeland security, maritime security is a mat­ter of prioritizing and balancing risks.

• Better Science is Required
• Fix the Coast Guard First
• International Cooperation is Essential

Winning the Long War

President George W. Bush was right to suggest that we are engaged in a long war in his State of the Union Address. It is an important distinction. Protected conflicts like the Cold War or the War on Global Terrorism require different kinds of strategies—strategies that place as much emphasis on sustaining the capacity of the state to compete over the long term as they do on diminishing the enemy.

Good long war strategy requires meets four equally compelling priorities:

1. Providing security
2. Promoting economic growth
3. Safeguarding liberties
4. Winning the war of ideas

Each has relevance to the maritime domain. This Committee and Congress need to insist that the Bush Administration implement measures to meet each of these priorities, not trading one off for another. This criterion should serve in evaluating any security issue, including addressing foreign investments in the United States

Thank you again for the opportunity to address this vital question.

Signal – AFCEA’s International Journal
By Maryann Lawlor
February 2005

Top-down intelligence will boost security.

The U.S. Coast Guard is going on the offensive with a transformational initiative that represents a fundamental shift in how the service operates. Rather than serving primarily in a response mode, the service is taking a proactive approach to understanding the global maritime space so it can assess any vessel that could affect the safety, security, economy or environment of the United States. To accomplish this task, the Coast Guard will be relying on technologies that help track watercraft, distinguish normal activity from potential threats and provide this information to the people and organizations that need it.

The concept is called maritime domain awareness (MDA), and it turns the conventional intelligence-gathering approach on its head. Traditionally, one or two pieces of information are identified about a vessel, person or target, then Coast Guard personnel track it down. Although this bottom-up technique still will be employed, the MDA approach expands intelligence-gathering by looking at all vessels, their crews and other related personnel and sorting through this information using intelligent agents and other data processing tools to find targets of interest.

Full Story

The AP, Navy plans to sink America, is reporting that the US Navy is planning to sink the USS America 300 miles off the East Coast. The process of scuttling the ship will be utilized to test various explosives on the vessel to help in future ship development. The testing process is expected to take 4 to 6 weeks. The experiment is considered classified, so limited information is available about the exercise. I found the following excerpt from the article to be most interesting vis-a-vis the current discussion re: port security:

Experiments that will last from four to six weeks, the Navy will batter the America with explosives, both underwater and above the surface, watching from afar and through monitoring devices placed on the vessel.

These explosions would presumably simulate attacks by torpedoes, cruise missiles and perhaps a small boat suicide attack like the one that damaged the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

At the end, explosive scuttling charges placed to flood the ship will be detonated, and the America will begin its descent to the sea floor, more than 6,000 feet below.

Full Story