Before the 9/11 attack, the police intelligence had no connection with the military intelligence. The police intelligence was concerned with issues that affected the locals while the military intelligence was charged with the responsibility of ensuring that American interests are safe in oversees states.
The police had a sole role of ensuring that local criminals are dealt with in accordance to the law. The security forces exercised specialization and division of labor because the military could not interfere with the role of the police. Since 9/11, actors at the international system have posed serious challenges to the existence of states. In this regard, states have reacted to terrorism threats by formulating policies aimed at unifying the activities of security agencies at the local, national, and state levels (Kelling, & Bratton, 2006).
Terrorists utilize various techniques, including the use of weapons of mass destruction and small arms. In Mumbai, terrorists used small arms to extend their heinous acts to innocent citizens. Due to this, the US government has come up with policies aimed at strengthening the operations of the police.
However, the policies are perceived to affect various levels of government, including the state, local and national governments. Terrorists might be living with local communities yet the government searches for them in other countries. There needs to be a policy that would link up the activities of the police with those of the military.
A terrorist might reside in the US while committing other crimes, such as drug abuse, abduction, and carjacking in order to fund terrorist activities. The joint operation between the military intelligence and police intelligence would help identify the activities of terrorists both locally and internationally (Eack, 2008).
The local police have a great role to play according to the new policy. The main role of the local police is to keep an eye on the activities of foreigners and lend its ears to the demands of the locals as far as security is concerned. In other words, the local police are charged with the responsibility of information collection.
It collects raw data that must be analyzed by other security agencies before acting. In this regard, the local police employ community policing as one of the major strategies towards kicking out terrorists in the community. Through community policing, the local police would be in a position to establish strong links with the locals, as well as build trust. The local police are referred to as the first preventers because they obtain important information from the locals and act to stop terrorists from accomplishing their missions (Carter, 2004).
The state police have a role to play in the information sharing policy because the state police advise the governor on the best practices to employ regarding terrorism. Apart from offering advisory services, information sharing policy demands that police officers should offer adequate assistance to state jurisdictions as regards to terrorism. In many states, the role of the state police is to offer guidance on counterterrorism policies.
The state police act is the largest safety agency. Some scholars argue that other policy makers at the state level do not have the capability to generate policies related to counterterrorism because of the existence of state police. Information sharing policy has strengthened the operations of the state police in a number of ways. The law requires that other security must report any security to the state police, but not otherwise.
Therefore, information sharing policy is effective in the sense that state police are empowered by the law. The national security agencies, such as the FBI, do not share information with state and local agencies. Any information collected by the FBI is treated as confidential and should not be shared with any agency or individual, apart from the FBI officials.
However, the new policy on information sharing demands that the FBI and CIA should disseminate information to other security agencies, including local, state, and the military personnel. For instance, CIA personnel noted an American citizen conversing with a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist. There were mixed reports on whether the officer had to disseminate information to other security agencies. Under the new policy, the officials of CIA and FBI are expected to share information freely with other security agencies (Reaves, 2007).
It should be observed that the policy has not been implemented fully because the flow of information among security agencies is unclear. The issue of confidence arises when it comes to executing the policy. Some security agencies perceive that information would not be confidential if exposed to other security agencies.
Local police have diminutive experience and skills when it comes to information handling and distribution. At the state level, police entities are unable to distribute information to security agencies in because of the differences in laws. Each state has its own security polices with different implementation strategies. Security agencies should strive to utilize the services of NCTC in case information sharing is to be achieved. In the new international system, information sharing is one of the solutions to the problem of terrorism.
References
Carter, D. (2004). Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Eack, K. (2008). State and Local Fusion Centers: Emerging Trends and Issues. Homeland Security Affairs, 2(1).
Kelling, G. & Bratton, W. (2006). Policing Terrorism. Civic Bulletin, 1(43).
Reaves, D. (2007). Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. Washington: Bureau of Justice Statistics.