It was reported this morning that according to the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, General Richard Skinner, 289 handguns, shotguns, and automatic rifles belonging to the Department had been lost or stolen between 2005 and 2008. The 289 weapons included those left by agents in restrooms, bowling alleys, and fast food restaurants. Some weapons were stolen after they were left in truck beds. Others were lost after the agents left their weapons on their vehicle bumpers as they drove away. In a report, the DHS concluded the obvious when it wrote laconically that the department "through its components did not adequately safeguard and control its firearms."
According to its web site, the Department of Homeland Security's "overriding and urgent mission is to lead a unified national effort to secure the country and preserve its freedoms." One would think that a key to achieving its mission would be to secure its firearms. Nevertheless, the department and its agents didn't fail. It was the "components" that failed. Even then, its "components" did not screw up by losing or misplacing their weapons, they simply performed "inadequately."
Agents and officers are not "components." They are men and women hired and trained to protect us us. An agent leaving his weapon in a restroom or unattended in the bed of his truck is not a component performing its task inadequately, it is an agent demonstrating negligence of the highest order. As someone who was in the Army, it is near incomprehensible to me how someone officially charged with a weapon can misplace it or leave it somewhere. In the Army, if a weapon was lost or misplaced, the repercussions of that incident would be felt all the way up the chain of command to the battalion commander and perhaps beyond. Even an unattended weapon was a grave offense.
We are not talking about the local constabulary. We are talking of trained federal law enforcement officers. The U.S. is not Mayberry. If agent Fife leaves his weapon in a restroom or on the bumper of his truck, he is not to be chuckled at or chided. He should be fired. Moreover, Sheriff Taylor should have to explain himself as well. The loss of 289 weapons indicates a more systemic problem than simply a hand full of poorly trained or negligent officers. At some point, someone has to take responsibility, and it should be the ones responsible for hiring, training, and setting rules for agents. A bland statement in a report issued by an office listing disciplinary actions taken simply serves to minimize the gravity of an issue. A simple recommendation that "tighter rules" by adopted may also be reassuring, but unless someone is held accountable and made responsible, it is likely that bureaucratic inertia and indifference will continue. A professional law enforcement agency, let alone a federal law enforcement agency, should not need tighter rules concerning keeping and storing firearms. Common sense should be enough. A rule against leaving weapons in restrooms and bowling alleys should be an embarrassment.
Blaming components and rules has become common in explaining errors and oversights. It allows blame to be assigned impersonally. But "components" are people. Rules are created by people. They are applied by people and they are followed by people. Moreover, those people are trained to create, apply, and follow those rules. If a system or rule fails or errs, it is not enough to simply reexamine the rules. Systems and rules do not fail on their own. They need help. If a "component" fails, it should be replaced. If enough components fail, the system is flawed and should be overhauled. The human element in creating systems and implementing rules should never be overlooked. Components and rules don't lose shotguns and leave side arms in lavatories. People do.
If tighter rules and better training are needed to keep federal agents from leaving their weapons on truck bumpers or from being left behind in rest rooms, fast food restaurants, and bowling alleys, God help us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment