Terrorism and police organizations

Terrorism & Police Organizations

GLOBAL TERRORISM and U.S. POLICE AGENCY INTEGRATION

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11/01 terrorist attack on New York City's

World Trade Center towers, coordination of counter terrorism and intelligence gathering efforts among the many U.S. law enforcement agencies assumed top priority. At the same time, U.S. authorities also redoubled their efforts to synchronize intercontinental foreign intelligence and law enforcement sources, especially throughout Europe, Africa, and Asia.

In principle, complete integration of all domestic law enforcement agencies would seem more conducive to an effective national anti-terrorism campaign than maintaining hundreds of autonomous local agencies. On a practical level, integrating law enforcement into a single national police organization is far too difficult, at least for the foreseeable future.

Integrating National Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies:

In response to the 2004 release of the 9/11 Commission Report, which outlined forty-one specific recommendations to protect the country from terrorism, President

Bush announced his intention to establish the National Counter Terrorism Center

(NCTC) headed by a National Intelligence Director (NID). One of the main purposes of the NCTC and its director was, specifically, to coordinate better processes for inter- agency information and intelligence sharing between the primary law enforcement and intelligence agencies responsible for protecting American interests, both domestically and overseas.

To understand some of the fundamental difficulties, one need look no further than the problems already encountered just from recent efforts to coordinate intelligence sharing among local, state, and federal authorities in general, and between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) -- the nation's lead counter terrorism agency -- and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) -- the nation's premier global counter terrorism agency. Critics of the plan commend its goal, but suggest that the NID is largely a figurehead position with no greater authority than already maintained by the CIA director, and point out the problems already encountered in attempts to integrate just two principle law enforcement and intelligence agencies through the joint CIA-FBI Terrorist Threat Integration Center established for that purpose in 2003. (Whitelaw, p.24)

It would also seem logical to expect that one obvious prerequisite for significant coordination among multiple agencies would be effective self-regulation within the individual agencies themselves. However, as detailed by former FBI special agent Mike German (and others), very significant problems within the FBI alone include countless instances of mishandled intelligence information, supervisory incompetence, and internal cover-ups of investigatory mistakes for the sake of preserving the agency's reputation, even at the cost of national security. (German, 2005). Until all internal problems plaguing individual law enforcement agencies can be eliminated, the prospect of meaningful interagency coordination and intelligence sharing would appear more of an elusive hope than a practical reality.

Integrating Local, State, and Federal Police Functions:

Even with a successful solution to the problems of interagency rivalry and their related disputes over intelligence "turf wars" -- by no means likely to be accomplished anytime soon -- the prospect of unifying all domestic law enforcement functions within a single national police organization poses insurmountable problems for several main reasons. At the simplest level, history has documented the extent of institutionalized resistance to sharing information and jurisdiction among the largest, most generously funded, and most selective law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the country, such as between and among the CIA, FBI, and National

Security Agency (NSA). If such problems exist between different agencies all within the federal government, they would almost certainly be multiplied exponentially by attempts to integrate all federal law enforcement agencies with hundreds of local police departments throughout the country.

Law Enforcement Practice, Procedure, Training, and Administration Standards:

Local police departments range in size from those employing fewer than ten officers to those employing over 30,000 officers, as in the case of New York City's

NYPD, the largest local police agency in the country. With absolutely no existing national standardization for police training, state and local police department training ranges from six-month long, live-in police academies such as those of the largest state police agencies and much smaller, independent local police academies with much shorter training programs. At some of the smallest local sheriff departments, officers may still be sworn into their positions by direct Sheriff's appointment, without prior training of any kind. In between those two extremes, police training and certification in different states range from four-week long, self-sponsored community college certification programs to independently run police academy training programs run by municipal police departments themselves.

Just as pre-employment officer training programs vary significantly among different agencies, so does the degree of thoroughness and accuracy of pre- employment candidate screening and background investigations conducted by police applicant background investigators. Likewise, no two police departments or state agencies maintain the same policies and procedures, which is another tremendous obstacle t any suggested establishment of one nationwide police force.

Finally, some local and state police agencies have long been characterized by efficient administration and ethical leadership whereas others have equally long histories of administrative failures and institutionalized corruption, further complicating any attempt at nationwide consolidation of uniform police administration..

Constitutional Considerations:

State sovereignty in all legal matters not preempted by federal jurisdiction or by specific exercise of federal power is a fundamental constitutional principle. It presents another insurmountable practical barrier to the notion of any single nationwide police organization. State law -- both civil and criminal law and procedure -- have, ever since the landmark 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland, evolved completely separately, both from the laws of other states and from the laws of the federal government, in all state matters not contradicted by Supreme Court's interpretation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.