CNN: Bombs succesfully smuggled into ten federal buildings during test

[Toe Jam]

This is the most chilling thing I have read in a month.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/07/federal.buildings.security/index.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

click link for more

[Koolblue13]

But we're spending billions to secure that.

It doesn't matter, we are fighting them on their teritory, remember? That's why it's so expensive.

[Vicious]

I don't think we're fighting Saudi Arabia actually lol

[Hubbs]

Amazing. A woman X-rays her baby and gets rewarded for it.

(Oh yeah, were there bombs in the story? Yeah, bombs. Yeah, not surprised that it's not particularly difficult to sneak components through our security measures, these same stories have been coming out about TSA for years. There's really only so much you can screen for.)

[Thiebear]

A free society has to put up with this.

[HighOnHendrix]

Amazing. A woman X-rays her baby and gets rewarded for it.

(Oh yeah, were there bombs in the story? Yeah, bombs. Yeah, not surprised that it's not particularly difficult to sneak components through our security measures, these same stories have been coming out about TSA for years. There's really only so much you can screen for.)

I seem to remember news stories about people being able to sneak bombs and other dangerous stuff onto planes to prove how bad the security really is there in spite of the show they put on that forces us to spend three hours in the airport to catch a one-hour flight. Then stories come out about them detaining people for silly crap like the girl in Boston who had lights in her t-shirt controlled by a tiny circuit board; they said it looked like a bomb to them. :doh: Or the guy that had his car key confiscated because it sprang out of the fob switchblade-style?

[Mr. S]

Man, it's not even federal government, but local government too has this issue. I know in one government center, I can just walk in during the daytime, with enough guns and explosives on me to do some damage. They let people in during the day as the public tax office is on the main floor. However, they don't block off any of the other floors. You seriously have access to almost the entire building, and can figure out where all the support columns are if you had any training in architecture or engineering, or know someone who does.

Also, the loading bay is not blocked off or restricted in any way. So someone could easily pull an Oklahoma City style thing on there. The building seriously needs to do these measures:

a. send everyone who walks in through security scanners

b. block off every floor where public offices are not located to employees only

c. restrict access to the loading dock to companies with security cards, and keep a guard there.

d. keep more properly trained police officers on file, or find a better private security company to run the building, not some fat and/or old rent a cops.

Even these measures are not 100% effective, but they do a better job than what is currently in place. I've noticed at least the county courthouses have cops wandering around everywhere, and they make everyone who enters go through scanners.

[Hubbs]

A free society has to put up with this.

I'm really beginning to wonder about that. It appears that we're successfully preventing the "total dumbass" type of terrorist from boarding a plane or entering a restricted area. That's not how I would define the 9/11 hijackers.

[Zguy28]

Nothing is secure.

I'm not sure if they should have made this info public.

[Burgold]

Agree, Zguy.

I like that they are running the tests. Not sure if we need to advertise our vulnerability. What is our need to know here? I'm against media restriction and I suppose it does help build pressure through public advocasy to do better or invest more, but I also think there's a lot of value and probably more value in keeping this kind of stuff in-house.

But let's not kid ourselves. No matter how hard we try safety is an illusion. We can reduce the risk, but we can't stop it. It was true before 9/11 and it is true today.

[Bang]

Nothing is secure.

I'm not sure if they should have made this info public.

Totally agree.

~Bang

[PokerPacker]

A free society has to put up with this.

I'm more than willing to take that risk. Many more people die of car accidents every year than terrorist plots. People just get extra-scared of terrorists because of the reasoning behind the death instead of it being more random such as a vehicle collision.

[SnyderShrugged]

Agree, Zguy.

I like that they are running the tests. Not sure if we need to advertise our vulnerability. What is our need to know here? I'm against media restriction and I suppose it does help build pressure through public advocasy to do better or invest more, but I also think there's a lot of value and probably more value in keeping this kind of stuff in-house.

But let's not kid ourselves. No matter how hard we try safety is an illusion. We can reduce the risk, but we can't stop it. It was true before 9/11 and it is true today.

I am thinking the same as you guys.

Why advertise this failure? won't it simply enable actual perps to the same type of plan?

[MurrayH81]

Totally agree.

~Bang

Sorry guys, I can't buy into that. The only method of improving a given process is knowledge that the given process is not producing the desired results. This information certainly wouldn't have been made public under GWB, and look where that has gotten us (where we are now).

The only way the government improves anything is via public scrutiny.

The terrorist most likely already know the vulnerabilities, since they are easily discovered.

I assert that if we had dumped the same money we spent on Iraq into US Soil security efforts that we would not have better security at home than we do now.

[jpillian]

A free society has to put up with this.

Nothing is secure.

I'm not sure if they should have made this info public.

I agree with both of these statements. I think its nigh impossible to secure our government facilities (local, state, federal) within the US. And if we did, it would just mean there would be other softer targets (malls, churches, restaurants,etc.) where a determined killer wanting to make a statement through violence could do so. We have a free and open society. One of the costs is security.

My take is, our predecessors understood that when they set off on uncertain voyages across the Atlantic, or across newly explored "hostile" territories. Its one of the things that make our country great. We generally value our freedom/liberties over our safety/security. I think our recent opulence and largess has lulled us into thinking we can have both in equal measure.

Now, this doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to mitigate some security threats. However, I think it's equally important to realize that real, pervasive security would come at a cost.

[SnyderShrugged]

Sorry guys, I can't buy into that. The only method of improving a given process is knowledge that the given process is not producing the desired results. This information certainly wouldn't have been made public under GWB, and look where that has gotten us (where we are now).

The only way the government improves anything is via public scrutiny.

The terrorist most likely already know the vulnerabilities, since they are easily discovered.

I assert that if we had dumped the same money we spent on Iraq into US Soil security efforts that we would not have better security at home than we do now.

So why would that process knowledge need to be made public? Wouldnt the Feds learn just as much from the experience if kept under wraps?

[PokerPacker]

So why would that process knowledge need to be made public? Wouldnt the Feds learn just as much from the experience if kept under wraps?

'bout as much as The Fed learns under wraps

[SnyderShrugged]

'bout as much as The Fed learns under wraps

Ed Zachary!

[PokerPacker]

Ed Zachary!

After looking up who he was, I don't appreciate that comment! :mad:

[IbleedBnG83]

Amazing. A woman X-rays her baby and gets rewarded for it.

The woman didn't sue, it was the guard who sued for improper training after he was fired.

This story doesn't surprise me at all. I see it everyday with the guards I work with in my building. I know its not that much better in a Federal Building as it is with the State.

[Popeman38]

Sorry guys, I can't buy into that. The only method of improving a given process is knowledge that the given process is not producing the desired results. This information certainly wouldn't have been made public under GWB, and look where that has gotten us (where we are now).

The only way the government improves anything is via public scrutiny.

The terrorist most likely already know the vulnerabilities, since they are easily discovered.

I assert that if we had dumped the same money we spent on Iraq into US Soil security efforts that we would not have better security at home than we do now.

It took 14 posts. Now, tell me what the hell this has to do with GWB? And what the hell Obama has to do with it.

The point people are trying to make by saying don't make it public is that you don't broadcast your weakness. You don't provide a blueprint to your enemies on how to inflict the most damage the easiest way.

[SnyderShrugged]

after looking up who he was, i don't appreciate that comment! :mad:

???? Lol???

[Spaceman Spiff]

Nothing is secure.

I'm not sure if they should have made this info public.

That was my first thought.

[PokerPacker]

???? Lol???

1. Ed Zachary Disease

When someone's face looks Ed Zachary like their ass.

[SnyderShrugged]

1. Ed Zachary Disease

When someone's face looks Ed Zachary like their ass.

LMAO!! I and my two brother's in law have used that phrase for years and never heard that!

:hysterical: