While it may sound like a futuristic new idea, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) already operates a fleet of nine unmanned aircraft — and CBP’s drone program has failed to live up to its expectations.
The expense, disproportionately small contribution to border security, and infringement on Americans’ privacy are good reasons for CBP to wind down its drone program. However, if CBP does continue to use drones, it should further constrain their use to prevent unnecessary data collection of Americans. China and other authoritarian countries have already begun to use drones to conduct domestic suspicionless surveillance, including of protesters and dissidents. The United States should put in place safeguards to prevent similar actions here.
CBP should use its drones solely for border security operations except in the case of states of emergency.
CBP should not conduct drone surveillance more than five miles from the border.
If CBP does use its drones to support state and local operations, it should ensure that its drone pilots comply with state and local drone legislation, including warrant requirements.
CBP should not seek drones with facial recognition capability, which puts law-abiding Americans’ privacy at increased risk.
At least six months before deploying new surveillance technology, CBP should disclose details about the technology’s capabilities, including information about the type of data to be collected, how long CBP plans to keep the data, when CBP will share the data, and with whom it will share the data.
CBP should study replacing drones with surveillance technology that limits unnecessary data collection on U.S. residents.
A terrorism vetting failure occurs when a foreigner is granted entry to the United States who had terrorist associations or sympathies and who later committed a terrorism offense including support for terrorist groups abroad.
Only 13 people — 2% of the 531 individuals convicted of terrorism offenses or killed while committing an offense since 9/11 — entered due to a vetting failure in the post-9/11 security system.
There were 52 vetting failures in the 15 years leading up to 9/11, four times as many as in the 15 years since the attacks. From 2002 to 2016, the vetting system failed and permitted the entry of 1 radicalized terrorist for every 29 million visa or status approvals. This rate was 84% lower than during the 15-year period leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Only 1 of the 13 post-9/11 vetting failures resulted in a deadly attack in the United States. Thus, the rate for deadly terrorists was 1 for every 379 million visa or status approvals from 2002 through 2016.
Because these checkpoints can be either fixed or mobile, research for this project involved the use of multiple data sourcesto help provide precise geolocational data and detailed physical descriptions of a given fixed checkpoint, or, where captured on overhead imagery, a temporary checkpoint. In particular, prior reports by the Government Accountability Office (2009 and 2017), as well as Google Earth and the Streetview functionality in Google Maps, were critical in helping pinpoint existing checkpoints and making possible relatively precise physical descriptions of the facilities and equipment present at each. The ACLU — including its Arizona chapter — also provided valuable data.
The need for this project, and for greater scrutiny of these checkpoints, is more pressing than ever.
He believes that launching a pre-emptive strike against North Korea is legal, the only way to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon is to “bomb Iran,” and the U.N. is irrelevant. He was also in favor of ousting Saddam Hussein, a decision he continues to stand by, and helped build a faulty case of Saddam possessing weapons of mass destruction.
Bolton’s appointment and other changes within the administration indicate three things:
2. The president’s hard-line approach is informed by problematic — and questionable — causal links. For example, the president believes that enhanced interrogation techniques work, and produce useful intelligence. In his first State of the Union address, the president declared that the notorious U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will remain open to ensure that “hundreds of dangerous terrorists” are not released. Yet, “Gitmo” has served as a recruiting tool for al-Qaida and its various affiliates while scientists and interrogators alike agree that torture doesn’t work. Similarly, the president continues to falsely link immigration with terrorism, a view shared by Bolton.
Losing the legal right to work doesn’t prevent immigrants from finding jobs. They can use fake or borrowed documents from U.S. citizen family members, or employers can pay them off the books. Illegal employment, however, pays less than legal employment — employers compensate for taking the risk of hiring someone who may be here illegally.
The Trump administration is arguing that two recent terrorist attacks in New York City should prompt Congress to strip people of green cards. The first attack on Halloween by Sayfullo Saipov, an immigrant from Uzbekistan, killed eight people. The second was Akayed Ullah from Bangladesh. He killed nobody but did manage to mutilate himself. Both entered the U.S. on green cards because they were related to American citizens or other legal immigrants on green cards.
Your annual chance of dying in a normal homicide is about one in 14,000 a year — about 50,000 to 80,000 times more likely than being killed in a terror attack committed by a green card recipient.
President Trump issued a presidential proclamation this weekend instituting a new “travel ban” that restricts entry to the United States for nationals of eight countries.
Undeclared wars and drive-by bombing raids were hardly unknown before 9/11. But most of the military excursions of the post-Cold War era were geographically limited, temporary departures from a baseline of peace.
President Trump’s new strategy ignores the evidence amassed over 16 hard-fought years, and, as a result, more American lives and resources will be lost as this unnecessary war continues. There will be no winning for the U.S. in Afghanistan.
2. Their deterrence effect is overrated. Some say bases make the world a more peaceful place by deterring aggression from bad actors. But, the world is more peaceful these days for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with overseas bases. And, sometimes, bases intended to deter aggression can backfire by creating fear and adversaries. Russia, for example, feels insecure as a result of the expansion of NATO and the stationing of U.S. troops and bases in Eastern Europe and right up to the Russian border in some cases. This insecurity partly explains their aggressive military actions in Georgia and Ukraine. Similarly, North Korea is motivated to get nuclear weapons as a deterrent because the regime fears nearby U.S. military bases, provocative U.S. military exercises, and frequent references to regime change.
3. They risk entangling us in unnecessary wars. U.S. military bases often cause policymakers to urge American intervention wherever conflict may breakout. But, this risks entangling us in unnecessary foreign wars that are none of our business. If conflict breaks out over maritime or territorial disputes in the East and South China Sea, for example, the United States maybe obligated to intervene against China to fulfill its security guarantees to Taiwan, Japan, or the Philippines. Getting into a war with China over some uninhabited rocks of no strategic importance to us is terrible policy.
4.Technology has largely made them obsolete. It’s true that bases enable rapid military response, but modern technology has significantly reduced the problems of travel times over long distances. U.S. forces can now deploy to virtually any region fast enough to be based right here in America. An armored brigade combat team — which includes almost 5,000 troops, lots of heavy equipment, and vehicles — can get from Germany to Kuwait in about 18 days, only 4 days quicker than if deployed directly from the United States. Long range bombers can fly up to 9,000 miles in less than a day. After that, they can be refueled in the air, reducing the need to have in-place forces abroad.
Media coverage of terrorist incidents makes it seem as if terrorism is almost exclusively perpetrated by Muslims. But do the numbers hold up? Not according to the Government Accountability Office!
A D.C.-based public policy research organization (or "think tank") dedicated to the values of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.
