Remember 'heat ray' @CBP reportedly wanted to use per @nytimes ? Well @DHSOIG found Nov'18 CBP used "acoustic advice" not authorized to have that "may increase the risk of temporary or permanent hearing loss" & apparently lied in internal investigation bit.ly/34OPNzn
At time of course, CBP assured lawmakers Border Patrol followed use-of-force policy- “Of course our policy does not authorize firing tear gas at young children nor has that happened" -McAleenan, then-CBP head (photos showed otherwise) lat.ms/31L2ERk (my 1st @latimes ) /3
"CBP concurred with all four recommendations and initiated
actions to address" - The disagreement? CBP says OPR didn't know about 'acoustic' device capabilities - yet OPR told @DHSOIG didn't think 'auditory' dispersal tactic was 'use of force' /4
actions to address" - The disagreement? CBP says OPR didn't know about 'acoustic' device capabilities - yet OPR told @DHSOIG didn't think 'auditory' dispersal tactic was 'use of force' /4
The reality is that DHS and CBP's surveillance and offensive tech and capabilities have expanded dramatically, quietly and *quickly* past the already inept oversight of Congress & bounds of law, & will be used aggressively until caught.
*ADDENDUM:* And clearly meant to say "acoustic *device*" in first tweet - moving too fast. (Don't think you'd want the acoustic advice, either)
