The Future of American Criminal Justice:Terrorism and Law Enforcement
...Israel and the Arab nations during the 1960s and 1970s – were all directly related to the Cold War, the US-Soviet struggle for global supremacy (Harris, 2002, p. 1). As a result, prior to the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, all U.S. defense preparations, both domestic and international, were based on the threat from Soviet forces or Soviet allies. With the American victory in the Cold War and the essential elimination of the Soviet threat, it was widely assumed that a new era of global peace had begun. Unfortunately, the absence of the U.S.-Soviet dichotomy has resulted in a power vacuum, an absence of balance in international affairs; as a direct result, a myriad of new, often asymmetrical threats to U.S. national security have appeared (Solana, 2003, p. 62). The September 11th terrorist attacks illustrated the danger of conventional global Islamo-fascism, and the American vulnerability to both international and domestic terrorism – particularly the potential terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction technology. All of these threats pose varying degrees of likelihood of directly and negatively impacted U.S. national security. In every case, although our military and intelligence assets have been working rapidly to meet these new threats, the 20th century paradigm is no longer functionally effective; our military and intelligence assets must continue to be transformed into smaller, more rapid, more autonomous units capable of dealing with these complex and asymmetrical threats. More importantly, in every case our local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies must work cooperatively with military and intelligence assets to prevent future attacks. Analysis: The New Threat of Terrorism Despite the lack of a U.S. response, global Islamic terrorism – specifically including but not limited to the Al-Qa’ida organization of Osama Bin Laden – openly and explicitly declared war on the United States during the mid-1990’s; that declaration was followed by attacks on embassies in Africa, attacks on U.S. troops in Somalia in 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing, and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen (Baker, 2002, p. 766). Significant progress has been made in lessening the continued threat of global terrorism with successful military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as classified Special Forces operations in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Nevertheless, despite the significant degradation in the numbers of available Al-Qa’ida forces, the organization remains determined to repeat the success of the September 11th attacks; in addition, similar organizations – both Islamic and non-Islamic – have expressed specific intent to attack either the American homeland or American installations and interests overseas. The single greatest threat to national security is terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. This threat is not unlikely – and is increasing rather than decreasing, in part due to the availability of nuclear materials leftover from the collapse of the Soviet Union. The realistic nature of this threat cannot be underestimated: as the Hart-Rudman Commission noted in 1997, it is not only possible but actually likely that “a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon of mass destruction will be used on an American city in the next 25 years and that the most probable source would be terrorism” (Gingrich, 2003, p. 4). Countering this threat requires securing the borders with Canada and Mexico and consolidating state and federal agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, including the CIA, FBI, ATF, NSA, and DEA. All of these measures will require the active participation and engage of all levels of American law enforcement and criminal justice. Analysis: Why Terrorism is a Law Enforcement Issue Although the federal government has declared an informal “war on terror,” terrorism is as much a law enforcement concern as it is a military matter. The American criminal justice system must participate in the fight against terrorism for several reasons. First and foremost, the effectiveness of the “war on terror” will rely heavily on local and state law enforcement. While federal agencies may be tasked with strategic and large-scale tactical concerns, local law enforcement will often be the first line of defense; local police agencies will frequently have the best vantage point for observing potential terrorist activity and preventing attacks before they occur. To accomplish this, local and state law enforcement must work in partnership with federal agencies: The high-alert status of local law enforcement agencies since the recent terrorist attacks on the United States brings with it new challenges for information management. "This is a critical time for making real progress in criminal justice information sharing--not only to fight terrorism in the wake of Sept. 11, but to improve the effectiveness of the justice system," says Richard R. Nedelkoff, director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. "To be successful, we must promote collaboration and information sharing among all agencies” (Harrison, 2002, p. 31). Second, not only is local law enforcement participation necessary to improve the efficiency of federal agencies, in many cases it is the local criminal justice system which will actually prove to be a more effective anti-terrorism tool. “Few tools of U.S. foreign policy are as vitally important and as consistently overlooked as law enforcement. Terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, sanctions busting and foreign corruption are serious challenges confronting American policymakers, and law enforcement has an important – sometimes central – role in combating each of these threats” (Wechsler, 2002, p. 17). Third, even if the prosecution and prevention of terrorist action is left to federal agencies and military organizations, there is ample evidence that terrorism will remain a law enforcement issue simply because it is frequently linked to more traditional types of crime: Criminal justice practitioners also must be more alert to the link between terrorism and crimes such as drug trafficking, cyber-crime and identity theft. Federal law enforcement officials report that terrorists have turned to such crimes to finance and support their activities. For example, Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Asa Hutchinson has said that the DEA received intelligence from multiple sources that Osama bin Laden himself has been involved in the financing and facilitation of heroin-trafficking activities (Daniels, 2002, p. 66). In short, there is no question that “a protracted war against terror must combine military force with the resources of the criminal justice system” (Slaughter, 2002, p. 22). For that reason alone, terrorism must remain a law enforcement concern. Analysis: Is Terrorism a Crime? One of the central stumbling blocks to creating an effective law enforcement response to terrorist actions is the difficulty in categorizing those actions. Clearly, law enforcement was not involved in responding to prior military attacks on American interests, like the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For law enforcement to take effective action, a law must have been broken. The question raised is clear: was the September 11th attack – and prior similar acts – an act of war or a crime? The answer is self-evident: terrorism falls under both categories, and must be treated both as a criminal and mi...