Why isn't DOD doing more to protect against insider attacks?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:05:54 -0400

A recent Government Accountability Office report found that the Defense Department needs to do a better job protecting against insider threats.

Published in July, the report looked at what actions the Defense Department has taken since the November 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, when Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 32 others.

The report found some Defense Department policies do not adequately cover insider threats.

For example, the department has no policy for when service members and contractors should report to base security officials that they have seen someone taking a gun onto base — especially into work.

Another issue is that the Defense Department’s instruction for military bases’ emergency management programs does not include any provisions about car bombs or person-borne bombs, which could be used as part of an insider attack, the report said.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/17/report-dod-not-doing-enough-prevent-insider-attacks-defense-department-gao-report/30298759/

Report: DoD not doing enough to prevent insider attacks

While the debate rages about how to protect service members from extremist attack, a recent Government Accountability Office report found that the Defense Department needs to do a better job protecting against insider threats.

Response by SSG Izzy Abbass made Jul 18 at 2015 1:08 PM

SSG Izzy Abbass — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:08:20 -0400

I think this very questions was already asked

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 18 at 2015 1:37 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 13:37:23 -0400

Gunny, having been in the law enforcement field, these knee-jerk reactions to shootings like this always spawn the usual "arming everyone" questions. Schools, factories, recruiting centers. I'm all about the Second Amendment. But my lifelong experiences tell me that preventing these "Lone Wolf" attacks are as difficult, if not as impossible, as preventing suicides. The determined individual will always get the job done. The intended object may need to change, but people will still get hurt or killed. Why, because Americans love their unlimited freedoms. The Media loves to alert the world to every secret and vulnerability we have under the guise of freedom of the press. Until Americans are completely and irreversibly willing to permanently give up some aspects of their freedoms, nothing will change. The fundamental reason: the human mind. It is the extremely rare individual who possesses the ability to assess mental instability on sight. Not one person I know, especially within the ranks of the police, has the ability to predict spontaneous crimes. It's a terrible circle in which we are constantly revolving.

I don't know what the perfect solution is, Gunny, for the DOD, DHS, or our nation's police agencies.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Jul 18 at 2015 2:44 PM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 14:44:52 -0400

Thats what TSA and Homeland Security were initiated for; however it seems they are a dismal failure much like the ATF, EPA and most other government agencies.... a waste of taxpayer money

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 18 at 2015 4:58 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 18 Jul 2015 16:58:22 -0400

Because in theory, once inside the person is trusted. You should never have an "insider attack."

There are three "basic" levels. Not trusted. Trusted with escorted. Trusted. But what happens when someone suffers a mental breakdown? Our system has failsafes for that, but it is built around "slow" legal principles, because we are generally threatening someones livelihood and life. What if we get it wrong? You can cause so much damage that cannot be undone, or can take more time to undo than the original attack.

There is also the concept of "Big Sky, little rock" or in other words, you will never be able to account of the asteroid that is going to destroy the Earth. You can make lots of reasonable guesses (based on previous behavior), but sooner or later, something will slip through. So you dedicate "enough" effort to watching the sky rather that "way too much" to an unlikely occurrence.