I have recently been asked what I believe are some of the major issues surrounding our counter-terrorism efforts in the US. It was initiated while discussing a case dealing with a certain Mohammed Qatanani who is facing charges related to his forthrightness on his immigration documents.
I remember the Qatanani case. I believe while then Gov. Corzine kissed Qatanani on one cheek - people were really amazed that Chris Christi kissed him on both cheeks. This all before he ran officially ran for Governor. My thought then was that even members of HAMAS, a group that has killed Americans - not to mention a general nihilistic desire to randomly kill and die- have constituents that vote in the US. Without getting into too much detail on the case- the Israeli's actually produced a document from Qatanani that he signed saying he was a member of HAMAS.
The bottom line is that our Counter-Terrorism efforts are woefully undervalued and undeveloped. The State of NJ is the perfect example. It has ultimately let the State Police take over, if not physical, certainly in management and outlook – the same bureaucrats seem to recycle in the system – while outsiders either conform or get crushed.
The State Police greatly desire to control counter-terrorism for various reasons, including funding, political, general bureaucratic nonsense, prestige, power and maybe they might even feel it is their responsibility - however, they are woefully incapable of addressing the issue for a host of reasons, including their culture and their very design. (This is true a great extent with the FBI -but they are trying to change at least).
What this leads to is a peripheral interest and a reactive approach to terrorism that is only triggered by the most obvious activities (breaking standard law enforcement laws) and then handed over to the FBI (if they even get it) and more often never going beyond the actual single point of the criminal activity (i.e. the organization behind it, financing). What are police usually trained and judged on? Arrests, speeding tickets, etc.
With the exception of NYC (the gold standard of local and national counter-terrorism in the US), many states (and I think NJ would be a poster child for this) believe that the federal government is on top of counter-terrorism efforts. While the federal government thinks the states are handling it through the massive amounts of funding the feds give for fusion centers - and what the States tell the feds they are doing perhaps. The States, in turn, hand the fusion centers over to police - who turn it into an extension of the police efforts and not a true intelligence gathering operation geared towards terrorist.
What NYC does differently is that it takes responsibility for itself – both on the law enforcement level and the political. That means, they have created a separate and somewhat distinct group that focuses on counter-terrorism -they have a different culture and think in terms of intelligence and collection. They have created a competing group to the FBI and use both their weight, and that of the political echelon, to force the FBI and the federal government to improve their efforts and cooperation. This has been a successful model – otherwise, any group without this combined pushed back – will be ineffective – they will never get out of the gate just competing with the bureaucratic organizations around them - that may actually try and destroy them - it isn't personal, its just "bureaucracy" - actually, it is often just personal. Believe it or not NJ State Police actually walked out on the States counter-terrorist group without even telling the Governor.
To be clear, I have met some incredibly outstanding people in both the police and FBI who do get it - however, I would say that they are a small %, don't make up enough of a "mass" at this point to truly have the needed impact, and worse of all - and in too many accounts are undermined by the leadership above them. However, even people in leadership have difficult changing the culture of their organizations.
I suspect it comes down to a couple of things:
1. A police/FBI culture that is reactive and does not understand the real meaning counter-terrorism specifically "intelligence" or dealing with organizing information.
Generally, police are designed to react only when an activity rises to the legal definition of "reasonable cause" of a crime, to create a case by only collecting information that is admissible in court and handing over a case that the prosecution believes it has enough evidence to prosecute. The prosecution will either prosecute –depending on severity of the case, where this case fits in their work load and chances of convincing a jury of their peers that they can get a guilty verdict or they can just make a deal/plead.
However, collecting intel has very different legal requirements (i.e. doesn’t necessarily require “reasonable cause”) that many police don’t feel comfortable with or more commonly are completely ignorant of. Thus, putting the police in charge, often is ineffective in gathering counter-terrorism intel in particular. I have heard in NJ, that there is only one prosecutor who was willing to prosecute a case that specifically focused on terrorism. I also heard that most State prosecutors rather plea everything out - while a bit more than just anecdotal, I would not have the slightest difficulty believing that it true.
2. Lack of political will and understanding by the political echelon (Cody and McGreevey appear to be exceptions as is NYC of course.) Remember, some of this “looking for terrorist” may involve discomfort for groups of voters. For instance, while telling people/voters that a Palestinian organization that they have been giving money to is a front for HAMAS might be tough- how much harder is it tell them that their respected leaders "knowingly" supported HAMAS? That is a hard conversation to have –especially if it is difficult to prove in court. Probably better to let the Feds deal with it and the potential political blow back and keep the votes.
3. Lack of public and press to stay focused on the issue. In the last two and half years there have been several (probably close to 10) attempted terrorist attacks on the US soil - most focused on NY - and yet we barely speak about domestic terrorism. The press at best, spends a few days looking at the individuals and the matter but doesn’t seem, even in these cases, to do any real investigations.
For instance, in a recent public indictment of two suspected terrorist in NJ - it mentions that they received money in their accounts and traveled oversees, how come nobody seems curious as to where they got the money or other questions? Even before all this, the press has yet to take a serious look at what efforts are being taken in NJ even though it was a hub for both the attacks on World Trade Centers. They seem pretty satisfied with the initial steps. I wonder if they even know who is in charge of counter-terrorism in the State. While the current economic malaise we find ourselves in certainly is one of the major reasons for this lack of coverage, even before the meltdown – the press really has done little oversight in my opinion.
4. Lack of real oversight by Congress. Congress gets its info for oversight based on what the political leaders of an organization tell them. If nothing happens, nobody really cares if they are getting the correct information. But beyond that, what measurements are being used by Congress to tell if a state, or even the federal government is doing a good and effective job? How many analysts are hired? How many documents have been produced? I think that is pretty soft. Bureaucracies and their leadership are masters of making things look “OK”. We need to test the system, we need to develop feedback and we need to know where we are with all this.
5. Cost benefit - It is difficult to keep ringing the bell regarding terrorism when the last major tangible event that anybody seems to care about occurred almost 10 years ago. Police have much more pressing problems regarding their core obligations, i.e. crime, traffic violations (which equals revenue) that are tangible crimes. Further, what is the political benefit of taking this on when today we just had a major economic calamity and need to make some tough choices - how would a politician spend their political capital?
In my opinion, and I believe that only government can handle the bulk of counter-terrorism, there is little business sense out there in its approach. There are many, many great and talented people out there working in this area and trying to address these issues – I have met them and they are some of the most talented people I have ever met – however, they are not the majority by a stretch and the complexity of moving this country, both federal and state on the right course is a long difficult haul; while every day, there is less and less resources, will and a priority to get it done.
It took the Pentagon 15 years to get the Joint Chiefs of Staff to resemble what it is today – and they were all soldiers who follow orders – how do you get an exponentially larger amount of civilian organizations – that may have nothing to do with each other- such as the make-up of DHS– organized into a minimally effective force? Perhaps NYC has it right, by taking responsibility for yourself on all levels and forcing your partners to be accountable.
