Former FBI agent Jack Cloonan, psychiatrist Dr. Janet Taylor, and Yahoo! News senior editor Beth Fouhy join “Say Anything!” host Joy Behar to reflect on the aftermath of the bombing at the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon.

“We should be concerned because we don’t know if this is the beginning of a new front,” Cloonan says. “We’re 10 years out from 9/11. There’s been 50-odd attempts to bomb the United States. Some would say almost 60. This is the first one that happened. That means the zero-sum game is over. We’re starting a new phase. What went wrong here?”

“We are vulnerable. No matter what we do, this is a war of attrition, and who’s going to blink first and who’s going to blink most often,” Cloonan continues.

By Theodoric Meyer, ProPublica, Nov. 21, 2012

Getting the agencies responsible for national security to communicate better was one of the main reasons the Department of Homeland Security was created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But according to a recent report from the department's inspector general, one aspect of this mission remains far from accomplished.

DHS has spent $430 million over the past nine years to provide radios tuned to a common, secure channel to 123,000 employees across the country. Problem is, no one seems to know how to use them.

Only one of 479 DHS employees surveyed by the inspector general's office was actually able to use the common channel, according to the report. Most of those surveyed — 72 percent — didn't even know the common channel existed. Another 25 percent knew the channel existed but weren't able to find it; 3 percent were able to find an older common channel, but not the current one.

The investigators also found that more than half of the radios did not have the settings for the common channel programmed into them. Only 20 percent of radios tested had all the correct settings.

The radios are supposed to help employees of Customs and Border Patrol, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service, and other agencies with DHS communicate during crises, as well as normal operations.

DHS officials did not immediately respond to questions from ProPublica about what effect the radio problems could have on how the agency handles an emergency.

The $430 million paid for radio infrastructure and maintenance as well as the actual radios.

In a response letter to the report, Jim H. Crumpacker, the Department of Homeland Security's liaison between the Government Accountability Office and the inspector general, wrote that DHS had made "significant strides" in improving emergency communications since 2003. But he acknowledged that DHS "has had some challenges in achieving Department-wide interoperable communications goals."

The recent inspector general's report is the latest in a string of critical assessments DHS has received on its efforts to improve communication between federal, state and local agencies. The Government Accountability Office reported in 2007 that the Department of Homeland Security had "generally not achieved" this  goal.

DHS has assigned a blizzard of offices and committees to oversee its radio effort since 2003, which the inspector general's report claimed had "hindered DHS' ability to provide effective oversight."

Also, none of the entities "had the authority to implement and enforce their recommendations," the report concluded. Tanya Callender, a spokeswoman for the inspector general, said the current office overseeing the effort hadn't been given the authority to force agencies to use the common channel or even to provide instructions for programming the radios.

The inspector general recommended DHS standardize its policies regarding radios, which DHS agreed to do. But it rejected a second recommendation that it overhaul the office overseeing the radios to give it more authority.

"DHS believes that it has already established a structure with the necessary authority to ensure" that its various agencies can communicate, Crumpacker wrote in his response letter.

The above video is from a Houston, TX news report that captured video of the local police department testing a new predator spy drone. After realizing they'd been "caught" a police spokesman said that they "would tackle privacy and illegal search issues later."

This report in the Los Angeles Times Sunday evening sent chills down my spine. Already, local governments have used tear gas, flash-bang weapons, rubber bullets, Tasers, and sound canons against Occupy protesters. A sheriff in North Dakota has used predator drones to track cows and would-be cattle thieves. Are Occupy protesters next?

Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.

Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.

He also called in a Predator B drone.

For decades, U.S. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. They have ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a backyard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws.

But, had anyone imagined the use of predator drones against U.S.citizens when these previous rulings were made?

"We don't have to go in guns blazing," the sheriff said in a telephone interview. "We can take our time and methodically plan out what our approach should be."

"We don't have to go in guns blazing," as I read that, I can imagine future press releases that say, "We don't have to go in guns blazing, but in this case we felt it was warranted."

The glowing green images showed people carrying what appeared to be long rifles moving behind farm equipment and other barriers. The sheriff feared they were preparing an ambush, and he decided to withdraw until daybreak. The Predator flew back to its hangar.

At 7 a.m. the next day, the Predator launched again and flew back to the farm. The drone crew was determined to help avoid a bloody confrontation. No one wanted another Ruby Ridge, the 1992 shootout between the FBI and a family in rural Idaho that killed a 14-year-old boy, a woman and a deputy U.S. marshal.

This time, Janke watched the live Predator feed from his office computer, using a password-protected government website called Big Pipe.

...

Around 10 a.m., the video showed the three Brossart brothers riding all-terrain vehicles toward a decommissioned Minuteman ballistic missile site at the edge of their property. The sensor operator in Grand Forks switched to thermal mode, and the image indicated the three men were unarmed.

Janke signaled the SWAT team to move in and make the arrests. No shots were fired.

At least no one was killed, at least in the example provided. While I can't imagine what sort of use this would be to law enforcement in their attacks on the Occupy movement, it's disturbing to hear of something that was developed for war being used on U.S. soil, and without warrants. Just a short while ago, I also couldn't imagine pepper spray or rubber bullets being used on peaceful protesters, either.

Perhaps I should be more concerned with the new "shoulder-mounted laser that emits a blinding wall of light capable of repelling rioters," or the 'wireless projectile electronic interceptors' that can be fired a greater distance than Tasers, and long-range chemical irritant projectiles?