Fusion Centers and Counterterrorism

Combatting Terrorism Using Fusion Centers

Terrorism is one of the major global security issues in the modern society, particularly due to technological developments and globalization. The 9/11 terror attacks on the United States highlighted the devastating impacts of terrorism as well as the lack of an effective national, comprehensive framework for combatting it. These attacks also demonstrated the ability of terrorists to easily coordinate and execute their activities and the lack of a thorough fusion program.[footnoteRef:1] Since then, numerous efforts have been undertaken by various security agencies to deal with the threat of domestic and international terrorism. These measures have included the development of state and federal fusion centers mandated with the responsibility of coordinating measures to deal with terrorism. Fusion centers have been established as part of reform on intelligence and institutional innovations on efforts to combat terrorism. The creation of state and federal fusion centers has failed to combat terrorism effectively due to operational challenges. [1: Tricia Devine, “An Examination of the Effectiveness of State and Local Fusion Centers Toward Federal Counterterrorism Efforts”, University of Texas at El Paso, December 8, 2014, https://www.utep.edu/liberalarts/nssi/_Files/docs/Capstone%20projects1/Devine_State-and-Local-Fusion-Centers.pdf]

Background Information

The 9/11 terror attacks on the United States is one of the major indicators of the growth of terrorism in recent years. While terrorism has existed for a long period of time, 9/11 attacks proved that it has continued evolve in recent years. Terrorism has evolved due to different factors including globalization and rapid technological advancements. The security situation in some parts of the world such as the Middle East has also contributed to the evolution of terrorism. As shown in the 9/11 attacks, terrorist have capitalized on changes in the society to develop sophisticated means for planning, coordinating, and executing their activities. These sophisticated means have in turn exacerbated the impact of terrorism on societies worldwide.

At the same time, the 9/11 attacks highlighted the significant challenges security agencies face in anticipating and dealing with terrorism. These attacks illuminated several gaps in efforts of many security departments and agencies mandated with the responsibility of securing the United States. One of these gaps was the lack of a national, comprehensive intelligence fusion program that would help in coordinating counterterrorism efforts through enhanced intelligence gathering. Even though the strategies employed by security agencies remained concealed, they were seemingly ineffective because terrorists continued to carry out their activities or operations boldly and with significant impacts.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Ibid., 1]

The 9/11 terror attacks also demonstrated lapses in information sharing between the various state and federal security agencies in the United States. At the time of the attack, the nation lacked an effective interagency and intergovernmental information sharing framework for terrorism.[footnoteRef:3] The lack of information sharing between the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) and law enforcement agencies at the macro-level is regarded as one of the major factors that contributed to the execution of the 9/11 attacks.[footnoteRef:4] The cultural and systemic factors at that time did not facilitate information sharing between these relevant security agencies, which in turn limited their abilities to anticipate and thwart the 9/11 terror attacks. [3: Jeffrey V. Gardner, “A Duty to Share: The Opportunities and Obstacles of Federal Counterterrorism Intelligence Sharing with Nonfederal Fusion Centers”, Walden University, 2017, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4873&context=dissertations] [4: Edward F. Scott III, “Integrating Fusion Centers and Law Enforcement in Utilization of the Intelligence Cycle”, American Public University System, November 2014, https://digitalcommons.apus.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=theses]

Role of Information Sharing in Combatting Terrorism

The United States Intelligence Community (USIC) plays a vital role in securing the nation through analyzing and providing critical information regarding potential and actual security threats. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has established a national strategy for information sharing on the premise that combatting terrorism requires enhanced capabilities in collecting, analyzing, and sharing intelligence and information on potential attacks, tactics to be utilized by terrorists, and their targets.[footnoteRef:5] Information sharing plays a crucial role in combatting terrorism since it’s the premise with which relevant security agencies develop effective measures for detecting and defeating terrorist plots. [5: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “National Strategy for Information Sharing”, Nationwide SAR Initiative, October 2007, https://nsi.ncirc.gov/documents/National_Strategy_for_Information_Sharing.pdf]

In the after of the 9/11 attacks, the United States government has realized the significance of establishing a framework for information sharing between various security agencies. The relevant government agencies have made significant steps over the past decade to enhance the quality and quantity of information flowing between them.[footnoteRef:6] As a result, a national strategy for promoting information sharing is developed and reviewed regularly to help enhance intelligence gathering capabilities. The National Strategy for Information Sharing is constantly reviewed and updated as part of the federal government’s efforts to enhance information sharing through creating a better information sharing environment. This strategy is based on three major guiding principles including the identification of immediate and long-term threats and identification of those engaged in terrorism-related activities. The other guiding principle is the execution of information-driven and risk-based identification, prevention, protection, deterrence, and response measures for combating terrorism. [6: Rick Nelson, “Information Sharing in Security and Counterterrorism,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 16, 2011, https://www.csis.org/analysis/information-sharing-security-and-counterterrorism]

Based on the strategy and efforts undertaken by the federal government in the fight against domestic and international terrorism, information sharing is an important aspect of these measures. Information sharing enhance efforts undertaken by the various security agencies in combatting terrorism and its related activities. In this case, security agencies develop effective strategies based on intelligence on perceived and actual terrorism threats. Each security agency analyzes the provided information on terrorism based on its role in counterterrorism measures.

Secondly, information sharing is critical in the fight against terrorism since it promotes collaboration between the different security agencies. As previously indicated, lack of information sharing is one of the major factors that contributed to the successful coordination and execution of the 9/11 terror attacks.[footnoteRef:7] Given the absence of an effective information sharing environment, security agencies did not coordinate their efforts in thwarting these activities. The lack of coordinated measures in turn made it easy for terrorists to carry out the attack. Lack of coordination between security agencies also limited their capability to effectively deal with terrorists and develop appropriate emergency response efforts. [7: Ibid., 1]

In light of the gaps in information sharing prior to the 9/11 attacks, intelligence sharing has experienced a significant shift in the United States. As shown in the National Strategy for Information Sharing, the U.S. Department of Security recognizes that there is need for strong partnerships between local, tribal, federal and state authorities. Additionally, there is need for strong partnerships with private sector organizations, foreign partners, and allies.[footnoteRef:8] Secondly, the various security agencies in the country recognize that information sharing must be knitted into all counterterrorism aspects and activities. This helps in development of actionable responses, preventive and protective actions, and criminal and counterterrorism investigative activities. Third, the U.S. Department of Security recognizes the need for developing a culture of awareness through which the different governmental levels remain acquainted with the functions and needs of others. This provides a suitable framework for the use of information and knowledge from different governmental levels to support measures to combat terrorism. [8: Ibid., 5]

Creation of State and Federal Fusion Centers

Given the significance of information sharing and the numerous gaps in security agencies during the 9/11 terror attacks, the U.S. intelligence framework has undergone significant shifts and developments. One of these shifts or developments is the creation of state and federal fusion centers for enhanced information sharing. State and federal fusion centers have been established as part of cultural and systemic changes in information sharing between relevant security agencies in the United States. Through these centers, the United States Intelligence Community and law enforcement agencies have had to change their way of operations to help address information sharing challenges that characterized 9/11 terror attacks.

Prior to these attacks, the standard model of policing was used by many state and local law enforcement agencies in the respective communities. This model was adopted because of the focus on criminal behavior and less emphasis on terrorism, which continued to occur across towns and cities in the U.S. However, the attacks revealed the drawbacks of standard model of policing by showing that some terrorists lived in the United States for more than a year before the attack was executed. These terrorists were integrated in the American way of life and would carry out activities like other ordinary residents such as attending local flight schools and working at a local gas station.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Ibid., 4]

The devastating impacts of the 9/11 attacks revealed that inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the standard model of policing in combatting new international terrorism threats. According to a post-mortem of these attacks, some federal law enforcement agencies and the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) possessed information regarding the potential terrorists involved in the attacks. These agencies and USIC did not share the information with other relevant federal, state and local authorities that were better placed to thwart the attack. Therefore, the lack of information sharing and under-utilization of intelligence contributed to the inability by relevant security agencies to thwart the 9/11 attacks. According to reports by researchers, a program that would facilitate information sharing between the Federal Bureau of Investigations and state and local police agencies could have helped in detection and preventing the plot prior to its execution.

State and federal intelligence fusion centers were established by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under President Bush Administration. These centers are mandated with the responsibility of coordinating the collection and analysis of terrorism intelligence and disseminating it to relevant law enforcement and other security agencies.[footnoteRef:10] The creation of these centers was based on the view that local law enforcement agencies act as the first preventers of terrorism and its related activities. [10: Daniel Poniatowski, “A Constructive Problem: Redemption of Unlawful Arrests via Fusion Centers”, Wisconsin Law Review (2014):833.]

Based on their structures and integration with law enforcement agencies, state and federal fusion centers act as the core of information sharing for terrorist activities and crimes in some areas. These centers collect and analyze intelligence through identifying patterns and warnings as well as promoting their interdiction and coordination. Unlike to the pre-9/11 period, the state and federal fusion centers gather and provide intelligence regarding planned terror attacks to local, tribal, state, and federal agencies. This helps to ensure that local law enforcement agencies have access to crucial information that could result in prevention and deterrence of domestic and international terror activities.

State and federal fusion centers are based on a bottom-up approach, which promotes the dissemination of intelligence to all law enforcement levels in order to create suitable linkages that help to combat terrorism. This approach also helps to remove the stovepipe effect that occurred within the United States Intelligence Community during the 9/11 attacks. By design, state and fusion centers are structured to empower frontline personnel to understand the local effects of intelligence obtained at the state or federal level. To achieve this, these centers customize national threat information into a local context before disseminating to the relevant local law enforcement agencies. The threat information is customized in a local context to help frontline personnel understand the various criminal and terrorist threats in their field.[footnoteRef:11] [11: Office of Justice Programs, “The Role of Fusion Centers in Countering Violent Extremism”, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2018, https://it.ojp.gov/documents/roleoffusioncentersincounteringviolentextremism_compliant.pdf]

State and federal fusion centers are collectively known as the National Network of Fusion Centers (or the Network). Over the past few years, these centers have evolved to an extent that their operations have become part of the national discourse on domestic intelligence activities or information sharing. Currently, the National Network of Fusion Centers comprises 78 federally recognized operational centers in several states and territories. The 78 fusion centers are known as information hubs that play a crucial role in intelligence gathering and analysis throughout the country. They enable local, state and federal security agencies to collaborate and coordinate effectively in terror situations.[footnoteRef:12] Since these centers are spread throughout the country, they are either owned and operated by state, local or territorial organizations. However, the centers obtain financial support, federal personnel, technical assistance, training, and exercise support from the federal government. [12: Richard Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security, 2nd ed. (Church Street, Singapore: CQ Press)]

Even though the centers are designed for information sharing purposes on intelligence, they have different structures and staffing because of differing priorities. These priorities are based on the threat environment of the area where the fusion center is located. In this regard, some fusion centers have a huge number of personnel whereas others have few personnel.

Role of State and Federal Fusion Centers in Combatting Terrorism

State and federal fusion centers are one of the numerous organizational innovations that have been made in the United States Intelligence Community and national security following the 9/11 terror attacks. These centers were established for various roles or functions in the fight against terrorism through analysis, operations, and information sharing. Since their establishment, state and federal fusion centers have developed to support wider public safety measures in the response and recovery mission of natural and man-made threats.

The role of state and federal fusion centers in the fight against terrorism is established in the baseline capabilities of the Network. These capabilities are divided into four critical operating capabilities (COC) and four enabling capabilities (EC). The four critical operating capabilities include obtaining information from federal partners, analyzing threat information, disseminating information to stakeholders, and collecting threat information from partners in areas of operations. The four enabling capabilities include privacy, civil rights and civil liberties protections, security, sustainment strategy, and communications and outreach.[footnoteRef:13] [13: Nicholas Klem, “The National Network of Fusion Centers: Perception and Reality”, Naval Postgraduate School, December 2014, https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/44598/14Dec_Klem_Nicholas.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y]

Based on these critical operating capabilities and enabling capabilities, state and federal fusion centers exist to direct connections between different security stakeholders within the public and private sector in relation to intelligence and information sharing. Their basic focus points in combatting terrorism include receipt, gathering, evaluating and sharing information relating to security threats. The information is shared among local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal partners. Therefore, fusion centers are critical assets in the United States Intelligence Community with regards to enhancing information sharing between security agencies and stakeholders. They also play a major role in promoting the achievement of long-term security through enabling the government to implement the National Security Strategy.

The other important aspect of the role of state and federal fusion centers in the fight against terrorism is that they were created to enhance intelligence production.[footnoteRef:14] These centers help to improve intelligence production through the use of information collected at the state and local level. Once the information is collected, the fusion centers work with law enforcement agencies in various parts of the intelligence cycle to develop quality intelligence products. The enhance intelligence products in turn become the basis for security [14: Ibid., 4]

Assessing the Impact of Fusion Centers in Combatting Terrorism

While state and federal fusion centers have helped in addressing some of loopholes in the intelligence community that characterized the 9/11 attacks, there have been concerns on whether their creation has enhanced the fight against terrorism. The impact of the creation of state and federal fusion centers on combatting terrorism remains a major issue given that the National Network of Fusion Centers is still under the maturation stage. On one hand, these fusion centers are regarded effective in combating terrorism while on the other hand, they are considered ineffective. In essence, there are different opinions relating to the contributions of state and federal fusion centers in the fight against terrorism. Some of the reasons used to support the view that state and federal fusion centers have not enhanced counterterrorism measures include…

Teething Problems

According to Klem, the Network has experienced several challenges in its growth and maturation including developmental stagnation, programmatic growing pains, integration challenges, budget challenges, and scope of responsibility.[footnoteRef:15] These factors have combined to contribute to uneven performance of state and federal fusion centers over time and across the national Network. For example, some state or federal fusion centers have been accused of engaging in privacy violations while others have problems in showing analytic capabilities. In some cases, many fusion centers have been accused of mission creep, which has affected their effectiveness in achieving their respective goals and functions. [15: Ibid., 13]

Lack of Understanding of the Network’s Mission and Functions

Klem further contends that there is lack of understanding of the Network’s priorities, missions, and direction among the public and stakeholders. These has created some wrong assumptions and accusations of wrongdoing by the state and federal fusion centers. Moreover, the operations of these fusion centers have also been affected by external influences, which have contributed to lesser support for post-9/11 counterterrorism initiatives.

Expansion of the Network’s Mission

Daniel Poniatowski states that determining the impact of the creation of state and federal fusion centers on combatting terrorism is somehow complex because of expansion of the Network’s mission. Over the past decade, the scope of state and federal centers have expanded since most of them have adopted an all crimes or all hazards approach.[footnoteRef:16] Following the expansion of the scope of these centers, they currently consult the more than 250 different criminal information sharing systems at state, national and regional levels. They consult these databases in attempts to provide case support to police agencies in different levels of government including local, state and federal. [16: Ibid., 10]

Complications in Law Enforcement

The establishment of state and federal fusion centers created a fusion-centric law enforcement machinery. This apparatus has in turned raised complications in efforts to deal with terrorism and other kinds of crime. The complications are fueled by the fact that these state and federal fusion centers are not homogeneous as they each carry out their mission differently. Moreover, the complications are attributable to the fact that fusion centers are established by tribal, local, and state governments though they receive federal funding. Applicable regulations on the operations of the fusion centers can vary based on the scope, mission and source of funding of the specific fusion center. The variations have influenced perceptions regarding the effectiveness of state and federal fusion centers in combatting terrorism.

On the other hand, counterarguments have been raised that state and federal fusion centers have helped combat terrorism effectively. One of these arguments is that since the establishment of these centers, terrorism and terror activities have substantially declined in the United States. Terror attacks on the United States have been relatively infrequent following the establishment of state and federal fusion centers to promote information sharing towards preventing and thwarting terror plots.[footnoteRef:17] While it could be argued that the decline is attributable to the fact that terrorists are not targeting the United States as before, institutional effectiveness of state and federal fusion centers could also have played a key role. [17: Andres de Castro Garcia, “Combatting Terrorism Through Fusion Centers: Useful Lessons from Other Experiences?” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 30, no. 4 (2017):733]

Jason Barnosky contends that even though state and federal fusion centers have had significant challenges in their early years and during their maturation, they have made significant progress in addressing information sharing problems that characterized the 9/11 terror attacks.[footnoteRef:18] Despite the challenges that these institutions have faced in the initial years of their establishment, their role in enhancing efforts to combat terrorism cannot be under estimated. These centers have enhanced counterterrorism efforts through promoting greater collaboration and information sharing to help thwart potential terror activities. State and federal fusion centers act as information hubs that play a critical role in dealing with terrorism plots. Through the funding they obtain from the federal government, the centers have well-trained personnel to help in counterterrorism measures. [18: Jason Barnosky, “Fusion Centers: What’s Working and What Isn’t”, The Brookings Institution, March 17, 2015, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/03/17/fusion-centers-whats-working-and-what-isnt/]

As hubs of information, fusion centers have a secret-level network that is based on an end-to-end systems engineering process. This has extended the information reach of the various security agencies in the United States in relation to criminal activities like terrorism.[footnoteRef:19] Through this network, state and federal fusion centers have enhanced the capabilities of security agencies to collect and analyze intelligence. The secret-level network has been used to link law enforcement agencies with their counterterrorism counterparts. Moreover, the network is used as a framework to support key national events like the Presidential Inauguration, which could be a target for terrorists. [19: Tricia Bailey, “Fusion at Work: A New Type of Organization Helps Combat Terrorism”, The Mitre Corporation, May 2011, https://www.mitre.org/publications/project-stories/fusion-at-work-a-new-type-of-organization-helps-combat-terrorism]

The specific goal of state and federal fusion centers i.e. information sharing is used as the foundation for determining the effectiveness of these centers in efforts to combat crime. These centers work to achieve this goal, which is considered critical towards improving counterterrorism measures in the United States. Additionally, the fusion centers are established and function as part of the National Strategy for Information Sharing, which is constantly reviewed depending on the security challenges and environment in the country.

Have Fusion Centers Improved Counterterrorism?

As evident in the previous discussion, the effectiveness of state and federal fusion centers in combatting terrorism raises differing opinions. These opinions are centered on the functions, operations and capabilities of these centers in providing a framework for dealing with terrorism and its related activities. Based on the assessment, information sharing between relevant security agencies and other stakeholders is crucial toward combatting terrorism in the United States. As evident in the 9/11 terror attacks, the lack of an appropriate framework for information sharing between security agencies generate significant challenges in development and use of effective counterterrorism measures. The assessment has also revealed several observations that can be used to answer the question on whether the creation of state and federal centers has combatted terrorism effectively.

First, the assessment shows that the creation and maturation of these centers has been characterized by numerous teething problems. Even though the centers were established as part of multi-agency intelligence framework and environment, their development toward achievement of the desired objectives has been characterized by numerous problems. State and federal fusion centers have received criticisms from their initial years of operation. These criticisms have been influenced by various factors including the lack of understanding of the specific mission, goals, and priorities of these centers.[footnoteRef:20] There seems to be confusion among relevant stakeholders, security personnel, the intelligence community and the public regarding the specific role and objectives of state and federal fusion centers. The lack of understanding is also fueled by the common perception that these centers exist to primarily focus on counterterrorism. Therefore, the inclusion of an all-crime, all-hazard approach in intelligence gathering and analysis functions of these centers have exacerbated public perceptions and opinions regarding their mission. The expansion of the scope of this project has fueled these perceptions on the premise that they currently focus more on community needs and local crimes than terrorism. [20: Ibid., 13]

Secondly, state and federal fusion centers face tremendous challenges relating to the quality of intelligence products. According to a scathing report by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 2012, state and federal fusion centers provide law-quality intelligence to the federal government.[footnoteRef:21] Therefore, it is argued that state and federal fusion centers do not make significant contributions to counterterrorism efforts because of the low-quality intelligence. A significant portion of government officials and researchers argue that state and federal fusion centers do not have the requisite characteristics to successfully coordinate and transmit intelligence effectively to promote counterterrorism measures adopted by the federal government.[footnoteRef:22] [21: Ibid., 18] [22: Ibid., 1]

However, state and federal fusion centers continue to enhance the quality of their intelligence products through intimate involvement with their respective communities. They continue to capitalize on their intimate involvement with the communities to gather information, which is input into the intelligence cycle for analysis.[footnoteRef:23] Through these measures, it can be argued that state and federal fusion centers focus on obtaining information based on quality instead of quantity. The intimate involvement in the respective community provides a framework for gathering quality intelligence through providing a different approach to intelligence collection than what officers are taught from their initial training. Personnel in these centers find it easy to collect and analyze quality data through direct engagement and involvement with the community and its various stakeholders. [23: Ibid., 4]

Third, state and federal fusion centers are deemed to have created a premise for unnecessary arrests through violation of privacy rights. The establishment of these centers have contributed to the emergence of fusion center policing, which has in turn relatively weakened the probable cause standard. By weakening this standard, fusion center policing has created an evident loophole sanctioning illegal arrests. As a result, the public and other stakeholders have argued that Fourth Amendment protections are more important in the modern American society because of the emergence of fusion center policing. This type of policing has also emerged because of the all-crime, all-hazard approach that has become the basis for the operations of state and federal fusion centers.[footnoteRef:24] [24: Ibid., 10]