“It’s clear that the Administration is not serious about the security of the border, which means it is not serious enough about the safety of the citizenry.”

Amen.

http://www.captainsjournal.com/ has a good roundup.

Comment by assistant devil’s advocate”

A little physics might help. Not much use in law school but speed = acceleration x time. Distance = 1/2 acceleration x time squared. Unless you have a top fuel dragster, you won’t get to 90 instantaneously and maybe not even then.

1. “Maybe those ‘radiation pagers’(?) were wrong and the supervisors were right.” I would respond that maybe the pagers were right and the supervisors were wrong. We just don’t know. Because unlike what Aplomb seems to think, most police work does not deal in certainty, only probabilities. If police had to wait for absolute certainty before they could act, we could not do our job. This concept is recognized by the courts. I don’t have the space to give a legal lecture, and I would not want to since Patterico could do a better job of it, but a great deal of police work is driven by the concept of “probable cause.” This is loosely defined as what a reasonable person would believe. Notice it is not defined as being right, just being reasonable. So if I am a BP Agent, a vehicle comes through a check point and causes the radiation alarm to go off, and the driver then runs, I think a reasonable person would say this is a situation that needs to be investigated. Aplomb seems to think that, absent absolute certainty that there is something illegal on board, the Agent needs to let the suspect run. Unless of course there really is a device in the back of the vehicle, then Aplomb does want the Agent to take action as is shown by point two.

2. “Maybe if you are a border agent and really think there are nukes in the back of the van you should do something about it, I’m sure you will be praised if you are right and of course it is your moral duty to do something about it.” This is the kind of thinking from the civilian population that drives police officers absolutely nuts. In his first paragraph, Aplomb second guesses the BP Agent; questioning the “radiation pager”, questioning the whether or not nuclear material might come across the border with Mexico, questioning the Agent’s ability, “Maybe the quoted border agent is a bit excitable and crazy.” But of course Aplomb does not want a dirty bomb ending up in his neighborhood so in his second paragraph he states that the Agent has a moral duty to protect him by stopping the bomber. A reasonable person might ask how this is to be done, since the Agent is not allowed to chase the suspect absent absolute certainty. So in his first paragraph, Aplomb seems to agree with the policy of not chasing this particular suspect, second guesses the Agent showing how he does not have absolute certainty that the there was a nuclear device in the vehicle, but then says the Agent has a moral obligation to protect him.

I guess Aplomb thinks he is showing the Agent how to act when he says, “Maybe if you are a border agent and really think there are nukes in the back of the van you should do something about it, I’m sure you will be praised if you are right…”. This shows his lack of knowledge of the reality of police work on the streets. There are several scenarios that could play out. 1). The vehicle comes through a check point and the radiation sensors go off. The driver runs. Since the agent can’t go in pursuit without a supervisor’s approval, he makes the request and is denied. If it turns out there was a nuclear device in the vehicle and it is detonated, Aplomb will condemn the Agent because, “…of course it is your moral duty to do something about it.” 2). Same scenario, the supervisor does not give permission to pursue, but the Agent goes in pursuit anyway because, “Maybe if you are a border agent and really think there are nukes in the back of the van you should do something about it, I’m sure you will be praised if you are right and of course it is your moral duty to do something about it.” One of two things will happen under this scenario, either the vehicle will contain a nuclear device or it won’t. If it does not, you can kiss your career goodbye. If it does, you will still be disciplined because you violated department policy. Aplomb’s belief that you will be praised for your actions shows a breathtaking ignorance of the way police departments work. And of course neither of these scenarios looks at what would happen if someone gets seriously injured or killed. If that happens the Agent will be going through hell for the next couple of years under the most optomistic of outcomes.

So the BP Agents are being asked to control the borders, and make no mistake, if a terrorist managed to smuggle something across and use it, the BP would be slammed. But their hands are being tied making it impossible to do their job. And people like Aplomb will be standing there ready to condemn them either way. It is a no win situation.
And so, as retire05 points out, BP Agents are leaving for other agencies. Unfortunately, I’m afraid they are going to find the same BS where ever they go.