For cops, fighting crime and terror go hand in hand
Lately, a growing chorus has charged that terrorist threats are overblown and make local police waste limited resources chasing nonexistent bogeymen — even as traditional crime ticks upward in many American cities. This line of thinking is misguided for two reasons.
First, as the recently foiled plot to attack U.S. targets in Germany shows, the terrorist threat remains very real. Second, the choice between counterterrorism and traditional crime fighting is a false one. In fact, good police work is good counterterrorism. For example, in 2005, in Torrance, Calif., police arrested two men for robbing a gas station and wound up uncovering a militant Islamic plot to attack Los Angeles-area synagogues and military installations.
Good information is perhaps the strongest weapon we have to combat both terrorism and common crime. The failure of the intelligence and law enforcement communities to “connect the dots,” as the 9/11 commission put it, helped prevent us from disrupting al-Qaedas 2001 attacks. By contrast, police forces success in reducing crime during the 1990s was due to their ability to connect the dots through Compstat (a police planning and accountability mechanism) and other kinds of crime analysis.
But for dots to be connected, whether they have to do with crime or with terrorism, information must be available to those who can best use it and that frequently means local law enforcement. The good news is that since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have been working together better than ever before.
Driving this change is Washingtons gradual realization that the nations 800,000 state and local police are our countrys “first preventers” who stop terrorist acts before they occur ï¿½ rather than just “first responders,” who react after an attack has taken place. State and local police have foiled a growing number of homegrown terror plots, including the Torrance case, though they have not garnered much national attention.
Information sharing between the federal government and state and local police has also improved. The FBIs Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which integrate local, state and federal agencies, have tripled in number, from 34 before 9/11 to more than 100 today.
The creation of state and regional “fusion centers,” which pool and analyze information from multiple jurisdictions, represents another advance. These centers, now established in nearly every state, should be crucial in the years ahead in improving our capabilities for intelligence gathering and sharing.
The sobering news, however, is that we still have a long way to go in achieving a true homeland security partnership, one that processes and shares information in a meaningful, timely manner. Yet despite the effective partnership between locals and feds, the relationship is inherently asymmetrical. A local police chiefs access to meaningful and timely information often depends significantly on his relationship with the FBIs special agent in charge or with the U.S. attorney. In some cities, local chiefs find themselves relying on CNN as their primary source of information.
Further, a recent congressional report noted several issues preventing fusion centers from reaching their full potential. The report questioned how much intelligence “fusing” actually goes on at the centers: Even though different law enforcement agencies may have representatives physically present, the report concluded, “collocation alone does not constitute fusion.”
The Department of Homeland Security is aware of the fusion center problems and has recently taken steps to address them. But the early experiences of local police with fusion centers are worrisome: Many have yet to see anything of value to help them fight either crime or terrorism.
Consequently, instead of relying solely on the federal government for intelligence, many state and local police departments have started to create their own systems assembling their own databases and setting up their own DNA labs, for example.
But critics who see all this as distracting local police from their basic functions may be imperiling our safety. We lost the 1960s “war on crime” partly because we misunderstood the role of local police; we lost the “war on drugs” because we misjudged the capacity of local police. We do not want to lose the war on terror for similar reasons.
Original Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-bratton_01edi.ART.State.Edition1.41fef6b.html