February 28, 2011   Current Site Visitors -> web tracker

CBP Caught with Pants Down
Hearing Exposes Definition Game Playing
House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security -- February 15   
~~~///~~~
Subcommittee Hearing: "Securing our Borders -- Operational Control and the Path Forward"
Mike Rogers (R-AL): I don't understand where you come up with the belief that you have a different operational control standard than that set out by the law. Can you tell me how the CBP came up with a different definition than the one that was set out by the 2006 statute that Mr. Duncan read to you?
Michael Fisher, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol: I don't -- and if I mischaracterized this let me be clear -- we're not differentiating from what the law states. I was just explaining earlier that we've developed a strategy we came up with on the manner by which we were going to assess operational control. It wasn't in conflict with the legislation. I was explaining that the tactical use by which our field command as we report those lines of operational control. One is how we differentiate between the definitions. Two, that all the definitions, even though they were written, are predicated on resources.
Rogers: But you read a definition to this committee of operational control and it was not attached (?) to our definition.
Fisher: Well, I'm just – I'm giving you our definition of operation - at uhh - definition that we train our leadership to make those...
Rogers: And that's my problem. You're a law enforcement officer. The law says you will prevent all illegals from coming in. And it's just as Mr. Duncan read. And my question is – why would the CBP develop a functioning definition that is different from that that is stated in the law?
Fisher: Well, I don't know if I'm understanding your qualification on that, sir.
Video Watch video of this exchange
Related: Defining Operational Control -- How CBP changed it -- American Patrol Report -- May 5, 2010

External links may expire at any time.



| | | Tweet