The Law on Terror
One of the themes you often hear from the Bush Administration and its supporters regarding their homeland security policies is a criticism of those who would emphasize the role of law enforcement in fighting terrorism. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a March speech:
Senator [John] Kerry has questioned whether the war on terror is really a war at all. … In his view, opposing terrorism is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement operation. That approach has been tried before and proved entirely inadequate to protect the American people from the terrorists who are quite certain they’re at war with us.
The implication is that these law enforcement proponents are not as serious about terrorism as the current administration, who recognize the need for decisive military action against those that would harm American citizens. As someone who agreed with the post-September 11 military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan but opposed the invasion of Iraq, I am unsurprisingly ambivalent about our current aggressive approach. I am unambivalent in thinking that Cheney and others are far too dismissive of the role of a law enforcement approach to counterterrorism.
For starters, look at September 11 itself. Let me stress from the beginning, I place all moral responsibility for the attacks squarely on the terrorists themselves. If I throw a punch at you, I’m responsible for your injuries. If someone tries to explain to you the techniques you might have used to block my punch or get out of my way, they’re not trying to let me off the hook – they’re just trying to tell you how you can avoid getting hurt by punch-throwing idiots like me. I think we need to take the same approach to would-be terrorists, and that’s why I’ve been following the 9/11 Commission’s public hearings over the last several weeks.
What I’ve seen thus far suggests to me that there were a number of opportunities for aggressive law enforcement to head off or put a major crimp in the terrorists’ plans. Better enforcement from the INS might have kept some of the hijackers out of the country to begin with. That’s law enforcement. Better airport security might have stopped them from getting on the planes, or at least from getting on with weapons that assisted their takeover. That’s law enforcement. Some people say that there should be air marshalls or armed pilots on commercial flights. Whether you agree with that approach or not, that’s law enforcement. Richard Clarke has said that some in the FBI knew that some of the hijackers had ties to al Qaeda, but didn’t share that information with other agencies like the FAA ahead of time. Improved communication between domestic departments is law enforcement. The just-released Presidential Daily Brief from August 6, 2001 mentions suspicious activity related to possible hijackings. Following up on those leads is a job for law enforcement. Some of the 9/11 widows have called attention to suspicious options purchases the week before the attack that should have, but did not, trigger investigation by the SEC. That’s law enforcement.
Still, what-ifs can only take you so far. So it’s worth examining the actual successes of the “intelligence and law enforcement� approach. The Clarke testimony before the Commission last month has called renewed attention to al Qaeda’s efforts in 1999 to engineer major attacks against Western targets, including Los Angeles International Airport, around New Year’s Eve. A fascinating series from the Seattle Times highlights how alert customs officials zeroed in on a suspicious French-speaking passenger on a ferry crossing the U.S.-Canada border in late December. Searching the man’s car, they found what turned out to be a considerable load of explosives. An FBI investigator realized the man was not a Canadian when he recognized the suspect’s dialect as Algerian, not Quebecois. Quick action by the FBI helped them round up others who were already in the country, waiting to meet up with the smuggler. The plots were foiled, and the smuggler was sentenced to prison, where he eventually agreed to help investigators identify and track down other terrorists. He continues to do so today. This was all a matter of law enforcement, helped along by aggressive leadership from high up in the federal government.
Law enforcement officials also are responsible for finding and neutralizing bomb-builders in the United Kingdom and for tracking down suspects in the March 11 bombings in Madrid. Indeed, these police investigations have apparently prevented further attacks and resulted in several would-be terrorists blowing themselves up rather than be captured. (Unfortunately, a Spanish policeman was also killed in one of these blasts.) Clearly, law enforcement has a crucial role to play. We need to look closely at whether we are giving these law enforcement organizations the resources, training, equipment and personnel they need to do their job effectively. We need to improve their organization and coordination, which means finding some way to cut through inter-agency mistrust and competition.
This is all crucial even as we keep our military options open, because of the nature of terrorists today. A number of commentators have pointed out the asymmetric nature of the threat against the U.S.; my favorite in probably Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo. The Taliban demonstrated that a formal state can and often does play a role in sponsoring terrorism, and states that do so should be subject to as much military pressure as we can bring to bear. But when an informal terrorist organization can do the kind of damage done in Madrid or on September 11, military action is not going to stop every single one of them. Some people will slip away, into friendly territory, to plot their next move. We can see that happening in Afghanistan, where rival warlords have overthrown regional governors loyal to the U.S.-friendly central government. And an unfortunate consequence of military action, even when it is justified, is that some people will be radicalized to work against the U.S. We can see that happening before our eyes in Iraq. Law enforcement is often our best hope of stopping these people before they can execute their plans. It’s a hope we can’t afford to ignore.
About Dave Thomer
Born and raised in Philadelphia. Studied philosophy at Fordham University in the Bronx, where I made many great friends and met my wonderful wife. We moved back to Philadelphia, where I studied philosophy some more and became a teacher. Online and off, I'm looking for ways that we can be better citizens and build stronger communities.