With 9/11 still in everyone’s mind, NewMajority interviewed Cathy Lanier, the Washington D.C. Police Chief, and William Bratton, the outgoing Los Angeles Police Chief, on how they intend to protect their cities from another terrorist attack. These two cities are in the top three of the most vulnerable to terrorism. Bratton has run the Los Angeles Police since being appointed in 2002 while Chief Lanier has run the Washington D.C. Police since 2007.
Former CIA and FBI officials as well as the former Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, were asked by NewMajority if they think the terrorist threat is still significant. They all were in agreement that the threat is very real. A former CIA official commented that the danger is the “possibility of bombings in public transportation centers but also threats to the cities infrastructures such as water plants, electrical supply systems…” Commander McNamara, LAPD’s counter terrorism head, explained to NewMajority that she wishes Americans would react similarly to Israeli citizens. She noted that the Israelis “get it. They understand the threat. They know what to do. Unfortunately here in America we are not as concerned.”
To keep their cities safe, each chief wants a close relationship with the FBI. Lanier personally meets regularly with her FBI counterparts while Bratton gets reports from his counter terrorism head, Commander Joan McNamara. She noted that “because of the geographical stretch of L.A. (460 sq mi), there is no way Chief Bratton can be involved in all operational aspects. Chief Lanier is able to do it because Washington D.C. is more geographically centered.”
Both police chiefs wish to change the rank and file mindset from a reactive one to a preventative one. Chief Lanier commented that “I am on call all the time.” She analogized that she is like the general that goes into combat with her troops. One way to make their cities more secure against crime and terrorism was to increase the number of “foot soldiers” on patrol.” Chief Bratton wanted “LA to move as aggressively as New York City.” Both chiefs felt that by better understanding the existing criminal networks they can look for any vulnerability to terrorist cells.
Chief Bratton’s insight and innovation encouraged the LAPD community to take a leadership role in fighting the War on Terror. Two programs implemented by LAPD were Suspicious Activity Recording Systems (SARS) and IWATCH. Richard Marquise, a former FBI agent, now works with police departments on how to prevent a terrorist attack. He explained that “the real key to preventing the next terrorist act is the proper collection, analysis, and sharing of information. From my perspective both chiefs do it well and have great reputations.”
One of the creators of SARS, Commander McNamara, told NewMajority she was given the go ahead by Chief Bratton. She explained that they decided that American cities must be protected by training patrol officers to look for common threads and indicators. They also are responsible for making reports which now go out nationally. She commented that “we watch for patterns and use codes as indicators for standardized reporting for all local enforcement in America.” Chief Bratton proudly commented that “we (LAPD) are widely recognized at the national level as being a very creative partner in dealing with the terrorists.”
IWATCH is similar to SARS but involves the civilian aspect. Bratton defined this program as “reminding, educating, and getting local communities involved in detecting suspicious activity, because it is every American’s obligation to help protect their neighborhood and city.” Commander McNamara summarized it as “IWATCH, I report, I keep us safe… it is an extension of the neighborhood watch.”
Chief Bratton also sees the need to make sure local law enforcement is in the loop regarding actionable intelligence. He will soon implement the first counter-terrorism center stationed in the LAPD headquarters, which is the first of its kind nationally. He told NewMajority that this will allow LAPD to meet regularly with their federal counterparts to “help prevent the next attack because we will be allowed to view high level intelligence.”
Chief Lanier was also very innovative in creating a program to get businesses involved in helping protect America’s national security. She implemented a business form of SARS which is “an outreach program to target and engage businesses that are most vulnerable for terrorist’s to use.” Chief Lanier believes that by using technology, she can get the community involved. She feels that “new equipment can be used for detection, deterrence, and response. I think we have increased the use of technology in the last three years about 300%. I am always looking at the new technology used by the private sector to see if it can be helpful.”
When asked about these programs, former Homeland Secretary Chertoff , who recently wrote the book Homeland Security, stated to NewMajority that Homeland Security “worked closely with Chief Bratton and Chief Lanier. I am a strong supporter of SARS. It is a very powerful tool going forward. I think there is a great deal of information that could be shared in that kind of forum… It is important for everybody to be involved in the full spectrum of preparation and preparedness in dealing with terrorism.”
Do these chiefs want to affect national security by becoming political leaders? They are in agreement that they do not want to enter the political arena. Chief Bratton stated that “politics is of no interest to me” while Chief Lanier commented that “I am a career police officer. Most police officers are allergic to politics.”
Chief Lanier and Chief Bratton feel all local law enforcement agencies should work together. This is obvious in how they view each other. Chief Bratton told NewMajority that “Cathy and I are good friends. I highly respect her.” Chief Lanier noted that “we work alongside LAPD for many of these programs”, and “I idolized Chief Bratton coming up through the ranks. He has a great reputation nationally.”
20 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Sep 18, 2009 at 11:47 am
This seems like a “no duh” article.
Is there anyone who would seriously argue that the US is not under any threat from terrorism?
2 Who Fired the Teachers?: Loose Lips Daily - City Desk - Washington City Paper // Sep 18, 2009 at 1:01 pm
[...] Lanier talks terrorism. [...]
3 jreb // Sep 18, 2009 at 1:27 pm
One of the points broached in the article was the general public’s involvement in being the eyes and ears of a neighborhood “terrorist” watch. I feel as though the general public’s awareness on the threat from terrorist attacks has waned during the years following 9/11. Shortly after 9/11, I worked for an airline at a major American airport. In the months following 9/11 passengers were diligent in assuring that carry-on items were not left unattended. However as months and years passed, passengers began to be less diligent on the issue of unattended items. I applaud the Police Chiefs on their efforts to involve the public in awareness programs and I feel this type of effort should evolve into a nationwide program.
4 Police Chiefs: Terror Threat Still Real | Global Security Blog // Sep 18, 2009 at 2:03 pm
[...] the original post: Police Chiefs: Terror Threat Still Real Tags: bratton, debate-on-world, donald, find-out, here-on-wotn, image, race, russert, [...]
5 djnichol66 // Sep 18, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Terrorism is just a concept that Republicans have used to stir up the populace, label the Democrats soft, curtail civil liberties, and attract votes. As far as the nation’s police departments are concerned, terrorism is crime and the solution is the same, good old-fashioned police work.
Let us not forget that both the United States and the Soviet Union left Afghanistan as a failed state after their Cold War dustup. That led to a civil war which the Taliban won.
6 jreb // Sep 18, 2009 at 6:10 pm
djnichol66 // Sep 18, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“As far as the nation’s police departments are concerned, terrorism is crime and the solution is the same, good old-fashioned police work.”
So can I infer by that comment that the police involvement should be to investigate and prosecute AFTER the crime is committed? Rather than “Both police chiefs wish to change the rank and file mindset from a reactive one to a preventative one.”
7 EscapeVelocity // Sep 18, 2009 at 6:20 pm
You hatefilled xenophobic Islamophobes!
8 EscapeVelocity // Sep 18, 2009 at 6:20 pm
and Anti Muslim bigots!
9 Reality Chick // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:28 pm
A good piece of news for a change. Lovely.
Is good old police work, coordination, intelliegence sharing and cooperation a bad thing now??? Really, “escapevelocity”… maybe all the “hatefilled (sic) xenophobic Islamophobes and Anti Muslim bigots” are really just average, well adjusted, hardworking, tax paying citizens that relish the opportunity of enjoying time with their grandchildren in a safer world. Let’s not have to sift through ruins after the fact, let’s encourage those that are trying to prevent the ruins.
10 stuiec // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Looks like I picked the wrong week for my two oldest daughters to be in New York City.
Fortunately, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, where law enforcement’s highest priority is anti-terrorism…. after every other possible priority, that is.
11 greg_barton // Sep 18, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Police chiefs also favor gun control. When are we going to see the article on how right they are?
12 EscapeVelocity // Sep 18, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Well armed citizens would have stopped 9/11 from happening in the fashion it did.
13 agentprovocateur // Sep 19, 2009 at 1:54 am
Why yes, of course! Everyone on planes should be issued a pistol along with the oxygen mask and inflatable life jacket. That’ll show the terrorists.
14 agentprovocateur // Sep 19, 2009 at 1:56 am
By the way, Greg makes a very good point. I notice that all the folks who tout police chiefs for just about everything else fall amazingly silent when those same police chiefs call for gun control. I wonder why.
15 greg_barton // Sep 19, 2009 at 2:00 am
My, my, escapevelocity. I didn’t know you were a truther.
16 greg_barton // Sep 19, 2009 at 2:08 am
Yeah, agentprovocateur. Conservatives have a pretty good racket: talk a lot about how terrible everything is, then undercut (or miserably fail to implement) solutions.
This whole missile defense thing is a great example. The alternative the SecDef and Joint Chiefs proposed to the bloated, inoperative, ill targeted missile defense system is one that costs half the price, actually works, and is targeted at the missile capabilities Iran actually has. But for some reason the right wing doesn’t want a solution that works. They want a situation that makes us more vulnerable and gives them more political advantage. And it’s the same way with guns. They don’t want solutions. They want advantage.
17 sinz54 // Sep 20, 2009 at 11:08 am
djnihcol66:
So the attack of 11 September 2001 didn’t happen?
Or if it did, what label would YOU put on it, if not terrorism.
In his 1998 fatwa, Osama bin Laden declared war on America.
He calls it a war.
His followers call it a war.
Why the heck can’t you?
18 sinz54 // Sep 20, 2009 at 11:17 am
greg_barton:
First of all, it’s always prudent to work toward defending against the capabilities that the enemy WILL soon have. It takes years to prove out any defense system. And Iran is estimated to have a working ICBM in about 6 years.
If Obama succeeds in canceling the long-range ballistic missile defense, what would YOU suggest we do in 2015 or 2016 when Iran deploys ICBMs? We can’t just wave a magic wand and make a long-range defense system appear instantaneously.
Short-range missile defense is not a substitute for long-range missile defense.
It’s also the case that our military systems can force a change in behavior of the enemy. If the enemy believes that our short-range interceptors (the ones favored by Obama) are effective, they are likely to ABANDON their short-range offensive missiles and put all their effort into developing long-range missiles, against which Obama has decided we don’t need any defense.
(That was the history of the Cold War. Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. looked at each other’s defensive capabilities and were constantly looking for ways to do an end-run around those capabilities.)
That’s the problem with Obama’s calculations and your defense of them. They ignore the fact that the enemy gets a vote–and they have the initiative of the attacker. They can plan an attack with a method of their own choosing–and we always have to plan for whatever they can come up with.
Frankly, I’m not much of a believer in ANY defensive systems. I’ve always believed that the best defends is a good offense. But Obama is a typical liberal who would never launch an offensive military action. In the time he’s been President, he’s avoided or deflected possible confrontations on just about everything. Not once has he gone to the mat for something he believed in.
The best defense against Iranian aggression is an American president who wouldn’t be afraid to drop the hammer. Obama isn’t qualified.
19 sinz54 // Sep 20, 2009 at 11:20 am
agentprovocateur:
“escapevelocity” is right about one thing: The best defense against a repetition of 9-11 is passengers who will refuse to go to their deaths passively. We already saw two examples of that: The 4th hijacked plane on 9-11 didn’t reach its target because the passengers fought back. And the “shoe bomber” was stopped by aware passengers who, frankly, were prepared to beat him to a pulp if necessary.
The problem is that it’s real hard to tell if an armed passenger is a terrorist, or a prudent passenger who wants to stop potential terrorists. Hence passenger screening prior to boarding would be impossible.
20 greg_barton // Sep 20, 2009 at 2:36 pm
sinz54:
Yeah, I figure someone would make that argument. Which leads me to…
We’ve been working on a long range defense system for 50 years and it hasn’t appeared yet! How exactly are we supposed to make it appear by 2015? No waving of the magic wand will do that either.
And speaking of magic, somehow we haven’t been the victim of an ICBM attack yet, and neither has anyone else. But is it magic? Not really. It’s called engagement, mutual self interest, and threat of massive retaliation. It’s worked fine so far.
Have any evidence to back that up? I know, that’s a gimmie question, because no such evidence exists. But I guess I have to at least ask you to be rational.
You must log in to post a comment.