The problem was not only inevitable as the sunrise, this blog specifically predicted it on the front end. Via AP ("
Cartels trying to infiltrate border agencies," March 12):
Mexican drug cartels are infiltrating federal law enforcement agencies along the southwest border and those charged with weeding them out say they don't have the money to catch all the corrupt agents, homeland security officials told a U.S. Senate panel Thursday.
James Tomsheck, assistant commissioner with U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Internal Affairs, told a Senate homeland security subcommittee in Washington that only about one in 10 of the new hires for agency jobs are given polygraph tests, and of those, 60 percent are deemed unsuitable for employment.
That means that many who joined the agency during the recent hiring boom and did not take polygraphs could have joined with corruption already in mind, Tomsheck said.
"That 60 percent number is alarming to me," said U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who chaired the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration.
The Associated Press reported last year that four applicants for border protection jobs were not hired when polygraph tests and background checks confirmed they were infiltrators from drug trafficking operations.
This should come as no great surprise. Indeed, in 2006 when the feds launched a massive wave of hiring for new customs agents,
Grits predicted exactly this development:
If you were a drug cartel leader with connections in US law enforcement and criminal networks inside and outside the United States willing to distribute your product, wouldn't you consider the current hiring wave by the US Customs Service the greatest single opportunity of your life? ... Seriously - if you were a cartel leader, wouldn't you be manufacturing phony ID papers and sending in your lieutenants to apply for these slots as quick as you could? And do you think the Bush Homeland Security department will handle vetting 10,000 new agents any more competently than, say, the response to Hurrcane Katrina?
Maybe I'm just being cyncial, or maybe I've just seen it happen too many times, but I predict we'll see increased corruption problems among border officials in coming years as a result of this illogically rapid, politically motivated border security buildup.
If I saw this coming, why didn't the feds?
.jpg)
23 comments:
Grits- You're right on point about the need for a reliable and thorough background investigation of new hires. There's absolutely no disputing that. And yes, totally agreed that an artificially rapid force increase will necessitate hiring more marginal candidates. However, the problem is with some of the methods and the conclusions thus reached.
Polygraphy is bunk science. Complete and total bunk. Hokum, right up there with reading the bumps on people's heads. So while there does need to be thorough vetting of new hires, a polygraph has no place in that process. As for 60 percent of applicants being rejected after the polygraph, frankly, that's not too much higher than the false positive rate. The real story is that they're rejecting over half of the candidates they deem to be otherwise qualified based on voodoo-science.
Excellent point about polygraphs, Assistant. Unfortunately, the cops tend to be so in love with the technology that even though they can't introduce it in court, most large agencies seem totally willing to use it (and rely on it) in evaluating employees, both up front and in the disciplinary process.
I've never understood why the unions put up with it.
Polygraphy *can* have a place in a disciplinary process, or in criminal proceedings. When a polygraph is used in a "for cause" setting it has some value as an enhanced interrogation tool. However, that value is only as large as the person believes in the polygraph. If the subject truly believes that it works, then they'll make admissions based on that belief. If they don't believe that it works, then you might as well have them hooked up to a copier.
Did you see the episode of 'The Wire' where they tricked a kid into thinking a photocopier was a polygraph? The kid would make a statement, they'd hit the big green button, and a piece of paper comes out the other end saying "False" in large letters! Thinking he's been found out, the kid then confesses.
But as far as being an enhanced interrogation tool, I can see where it might be true for crooks, but not for cops who presumably are aware the technology is too unreliable to present in court. Knowing that, why in the world would they think it could catch them in a lie, much less prove they're lying?
If I saw this coming, why didn't the feds?
Maybe they have a super secret plan to win the war on drugs any day now?
Just trust the Government! After all, these are consummate professionals. They've been protecting you from you for decades.
But maybe it's all for the good. Maybe, once things in the South are as bad as in Mexico, the sheeple will wake up and inject some rationality into drug policy discussion. I'm not holding my breath.
Ah America. Land of the still a little bit free and home of the goddamn cowards.
"I've never understood why the unions put up with it."
Do you really believe there are police unions in Texas? Maybe one or two that are collective bargaining. That the federal law enforcemnt system is made up of agents who are union members?
Your misinformation at time is amusing:)
What else does your crystal ball tell you?
Anon 1:11 asks, "Do you really believe there are police unions in Texas?"
I don't know, you'd have to ask Charley Wilkison over at CLEAT.
Your the one who said it in your 9:25 post so I assumed you knew what you were talking about.
You've been working too hard Scott. Take some time off and get some rest:)
2:18, click on the link. CLEAT is the largest police union in Texas. See this description of their activities all over the state.
You accuse me of spreading "misinformation" but speak out of utter ignorance. No wonder you do so anonymously.
Ignorant you say I am. That's funny. Members of CLEAT being union. They can't strike much less collectively bargain.
CLEAT? Scott; you really need to get away from Austin more frequently.
Retired 2004
I did go to CLEAT"s Link Scott; Then I went to the GOP link, then to the Democratic Party Link. By golly you are right! Each link presented this reader with just how great they were, are, and will be!
Retired 2004
Retired, I didn't say they were the Cat's Meow, I said they're Texas' largest collection of police unions. And they are.
To 5:42, AFSCME and SEIU can't strike in Texas and they're unions, right? As for collective bargaining, in TX it's called "meet and confer" but it's the same damn thing.
Yes, I know technically Texas cops are in "associations," not unions. In practice, however, there is no difference.
I agree Scott.
I also do not like the "dummies" that get off-topic with their comments. I will accept the "Here's your sign"!
Retired 2004
Workers at US Steel in Texas are AFLCIO and have a labor agreement in place. This is organized labor in the sense of a union that can strike and have done so in the past; one even being a wildcat strike in 1957. Know what that is young man?
CLEAT is a "police employee group", not a union nor does it represent unions in the sense of one working under under a labor contract with seniority rights and lines of progression.
6:40, you're talking to a "young man" with a granddaughter.
Also, police in departments with meet and confer agreements are "working under under a labor contract with seniority rights and lines of progression."
As for your phrase, "police employee group," unions are also groups of employees. While technically "union" is not the right word, as a practical matter it's a distinction without a difference.
No surprise here at your own boasting. And no surprise that you continue to focus your reporting on the negatives and rarerly anything positive as it relates to the many outstanding federal and Texas DPS officers who day in and day out go about performing their border duties in a professional manner.
Like Anne Murray's old song used to say "we sure could use a little good news today."
7:57, there are full-time PR staff at the larger police agencies, sheriffs, DPS, TDCJ, and all the federal agencies that spend their days describing how great they are while ignoring any negatives. In that light, I'm always amazed that a few folks like yourself seem so threatened that one blogger might focus on problems that need solving instead of patting you on the back.
If you need a friend, get a dog. Making you feel better about yourself is not my responsibility.
I don't feel threatened by you. You're as Barry Switzer once said, "a molecule in my universe." You're a negative person when it comes to law enforcement.
Maybe you still have some issues with COPS about something that happened when you were growing up or in your present life. In your world, nothing positive about or from COPS ever happens.
I'm glad you focus on problems that need solving. Just try and see some of the positive from time to time instead of the negative it seems all of the time.
Border corruption is not good but what do you expect? You know it flows from the top down.......On a per capita basis, by far the biggest source of corruption has always been a location that many Americans already regard with suspicion: Washington, D.C.
Vote 'em all out!
Border corruption is not good but what do you expect? You know it flows from the top down.......On a per capita basis, by far the biggest source of corruption has always been a location that many Americans already regard with suspicion: Washington, D.C.
Vote 'em all out!
11:24 writes, "I don't feel threatened by you. " ... "a molecule in my universe."
And yet, you feel the need to drop by on your day off to insult me, anonymously, of course (color me surprised), for failing to extol your virtues and blow you kisses.
When police/DPS/Customs/Border Patrol's full-time PR folks begin systematically exposing problems in their agencies as well as issuing press releases declaring how great they are, there will be no need for this blog to fill in the gap. But as long as official sources are so one-sided, there's a need for telling the rest of the story, which is why this blog was established.
The "massive wave of hiring for new customs agents" is politically motivated and a complete joke. Do all those who cry "big government" speak out against this nonsense?
Those who are hired to serve the government in this folly just try to make it work, through management. So, you've got an inflated paper-producing-for-signing management team and ... those on the ground.
The topic of unions is relevant because who is really running the show these days? Those on the ground wanting to do a good job or those on the ground having to follow the lunacy of a paper-signing/cover their a** management? All for a job. Who's got the power? Every day the workforce becomes more and more of a joke.
Post a Comment