Prevention of Terrorist Acts by Private Security Essay

Introduction The local public law enforcement agencies are aware and have recognized the fact that singly, they cannot cover the vast geographical area of their respective jurisdictions and enforce effective policing duties. They are limited in numbers, expertise and resources. For this reason, they have employed the services of the private sector specifically the members of the communities and forged with them agreements for assistance and collaboration in crime fighting and public disorder. In fact, the 1990s marked the emergence of a new mode of delivery of services in the public sector—law enforcement area. This mode of service delivery gave law enforcement an opportunity to employ resources and expertise which were not otherwise available to them before under the collaborative partnership and shared responsibilities with the private sector and communities (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). Even the government has recognized the importance of assistance from the private sector. Thus, this growing recognition was no longer limited locally but has spread across the states and the federal government. With financial support from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs’ Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), National Sheriffs’ Association, and American Society for Industrial Security International joined efforts for the state and local to start a partnership with the private sector, specifically the private security organizations denominated as â€Å"Operation Cooperation† (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). This partnership however, was limited to crime fighting and public disorder. A growing success was noted in these partnerships and continued efforts are exerted to thresh out some identified problem areas. The September 11 terrorist attacks brought a new awareness and rekindled the imperative need for local law enforcement and private security organizations to work together to fill the gap for homeland security and in preventing terrorism (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). By reason of the success rate in the partnership between the private sector and the law enforcement in terms of peace and order, private sector was again requested to pitch in its efforts to help in combating terrorist attacks. After the summit in 2004, private security organizations were called upon to organize and develop as community counterparts in assisting law enforcement agencies. The U.S. Department of Justice holds the opinion that community policing has the same direct effect on counter terrorism strategies. â€Å"These include the use of crime mapping with GIS systems, data collection and analysis protocols, and technologies that may be used as platforms for gathering intelligence to assess terrorism vulnerability. In addition, the community partnerships formed by police in the course of community-oriented problem solving provide a ready framework for engaging citizens in helping police to identify possible threats and implement preparedness plans† (Docobo, 2005). Community policing affords the opportunity for law enforcement agents to have knowledge of activities in their respective territorial jurisdictions which can assist in counteracting terrorist activities. These crime prevention partnerships has proven effective through the years and for which reason, this has inspired a similar idea with respect to terrorism especially after the September 11 terrorist attack. Thus, public law enforcement-private security partnerships are now thought of as being replicated as to apply to homeland security and counter terrorism. For instance in New York, Area Police/Private Security Liaison was created to enhance mutual cooperation between law enforcement and private security primarily for exchange of information. This gives the New York Police Department a vast network and thus facilitating information reports on security updates and terrorists news bulletin (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). Terrorism in the United States is characterized by inflicting harm and damage to a great number of people all at once. For this reason it is crucial to forge partnerships and mutual collaboration with private security organizations to be able to cover that large territory. The country’s infrastructure is protected by private security organizations while the law enforcement agencies receive information regarding threats thus either one cannot protect alone (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). Infrastructure as defined by the 9/11 Commission as to include telecommunications and communication networks, buildings, energy facilities, etc. (9/11 Commission, 2004). Based on statistical estimates made by 9/11 Commission in its Final Report, at least 85% of the infrastructure is owned by the private sector and is protected by a number of private security agents which far exceed the number of law enforcement officers and agents (9/11 Commission, 2004). Private security organizations can perform civic duties in providing assistance in evacuation, food and transport in emergencies (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). There is also information sharing and close coordination with other private security practitioners and law enforcement agents which leads to exchange of information, access to others, exposure, training, and familiarity with the needs of each sector, i.e. private security and public law enforcement (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). There is a more creative manner of solving problems and a marked reduction in response time to disasters. There were many advisory committees both public and private institutions that embarked on studies to find out how to protect the U.S. homeland security. There was uniformity in their findings that there is lack of homeland security strategy, defects in â€Å"governmental organization and processes in dealing with threats to national security† (Parachini, Davis, Liston, 2003). After the September 11, President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security and also established the Homeland Security Council as an inter agency coordinating body. In 2002, the legislation H.R. 5005 or the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was approved by the U.S. Congress and was signed into law by the President (Parachini, Davis, Liston, 2003). The Department of Homeland Security was established with plans and programs it is supposed to implement through he discharge of the powers and functions which the law mandates it to exercise (Parachini, Davis, Liston, 2003). Directives and orders have been issued from that time to harness the various areas for counter terrorism from state, federal and local enforcement level. The Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that â€Å"there are 16,661 state, local, and county law enforcement agencies in the United States, and they employ a total of 677,933 sworn officers. Studies on private security staffing indicate there may be as many as 10,000 private security agencies employing slightly less than 2 million private security officers in the United States† (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). These numbers can be a good indicator of the extent of the large number that can assist public law enforcement agencies. A security organization has various functions, thus a security practitioner may be a director of security services of a large corporation or a manager of contracted security personnel at the place or office of a client or an investigator with expertise on computer crimes (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). There are two kinds of private security services, i.e. 1) â€Å"proprietary or corporate security;† and, 2) â€Å"contract or private security firms† (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). â€Å"Corporate security generally refers to the security departments that exist within businesses or corporations. Contract security firms by contrast sell their services to the public, including businesses, homeowners, and banks† (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). Public policing on the other hand, deals with the state, local law enforcement including sheriffs’ offices. Primarily these officers are responsible for peace and order and street crimes and have no concern with corporate internal operations or private economic interests (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). The advantages of private security organizations over the public law enforcement agencies are these agencies have vast resources and expert knowledge in the field. Moreover, insofar as headcount, the number of private security officers far exceed those in law enforcement which enables them to cover and protect effectively a small geographic area (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). It has been criticized for lack of certification, regulation standards, lack of rigorous pre- selection recruitment process and trainings with a high turn over of officers (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). On the other hand, law enforcement agents are subjected to rigorous screening process before acceptance in the service and the officers are subjected to background checks. They are trained and are subject to regulations. The enforcement powers given them are greater both in scope and strength. Most of the law enforcement agents and officers stay in their jobs for a long time as these jobs are considered careers (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). This enables them to establish trust with the inhabitants of the area and exchange information. However, the downside is that law enforcement work on limited resources and budget. During heavy call load days, response time most often is delayed because of the volume of incidents they respond to (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). The main problem which was identified in the public law enforcement and private security organizations partnerships is a weak information sharing. The private security organizations man private companies which are by nature organized for profit. Often, these private companies are reluctant in sharing information which may be detrimentally used against them thereby losing profits. In an interview with John Cohen, president and chief executive of PSComm LLC, he said that â€Å"A number of corporate security people are hesitant to share information with the government because they’re concerned that of the threat becomes public that could impact the value of the company’s stock. Businesses want to be sure that their information is handled in a way that doesn’t affect them from a business perspective† (Pelland, 2002). On the other hand, public law enforcement also is reluctant to share or give away information to the multi national companies who are headed by foreigners (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). This lack of trust can be attributed to the fear that these foreigners may be more inclined to protect their respective country’s interests than that of the United States. Conclusion Public law enforcement agencies in their discharge of their functions have made efforts towards proper and effective policing by eliminating crime in their respective jurisdictions through the â€Å"creation of effective partnerships with the community and other public and private-sector resources, the application of problem-solving strategies or tactics, and the transformation of agency organization and culture† (Docobo, 2005). It is on account of this that the concept of partnerships was adopted to be replicated in counter terrorism programs of the government. Even with the current declaration of homeland security, community policing in respect of crime prevention, is seen as to overlap with counter terrorism objectives (Docobo, 2005). With these partnerships, strategies become more philosophical as these are impressed in the mission and goals of the law enforcement agency. The public department itself undergoes an organizational transformation. The officers who are lower in rank are empowered to make their own decisions and take responsibilities for their acts. Thus, decision-making is decentralized and officers are given a chance to tap their creativeness in problem solving (Docobo, 2005). The idea and concept of partnership and collaboration has been widely accepted by the respective sectors. It is noted however that there is a need to increase their effectiveness in order that the purposes for which these partnerships were created would not be frustrated. The goal in these partnerships is collaboration in which their missions may overlap but they achieve the same goals through sharing resources and information. It gives many benefits for both sectors such as â€Å"creative problem-solving, increased opportunities for training, information data, and intelligence sharing, ‘force multiplier’ opportunities, access to the community through private sector communications technology, and reduced recovery time following disasters† (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). The benefits and advantages from the forged partnerships are countless. It is however important to address the weak information sharing between the groups. Working together is crucial. Communication lines also should be open with free exchange and discussion of limitations, scope of powers, lines of authority and functions of each sector is imperative so that an effective partnership can materialize. There must be a clear understanding of roles and the usefulness and necessity of the partnership, where leaders are identified. These leaders must develop trust for each and every sector executive considering that the weak information sharing was observed to be attributable to lack of trust between both sectors. By making both sectors fully and deeply aware of the roles they have to play and its importance to each of the sectors, trust may be developed. The essences of these partnerships are mainly communication, cooperation, collaboration and coordination (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). Communication refers to exchange of ideas and information while coordination requires knowledge of goals. Cooperation means sharing of personnel and resources for the accomplishment of the goal. Collaboration is based on clear understanding of the partners’ goals and the formulation of policies to achieve said goals which although may overlap, strengthens the partners (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). The Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines on how to improve the collaboration with the private sector in its report â€Å"Office for Domestic Preparedness Guidelines for Homeland Security† (DHS, 2003). It suggested among others that there be a clear understanding of the need to prevent terrorist acts; a clearing house for received information on terrorism; interpretation of this information; clear definition of tactics and strategies to counter terrorism; definition of funding priorities; formulation of assessment and procedures; and the preparation of written coordination agreements such as memorandum of agreement between public and private sectors that should contain clear delimitations of scopes of powers of each, facilitation of information, and the formulation of processes and procedures (DHS, 2003). The formalization of the coordination agreement signifies the institutionalization of the homeland security collaboration. These guidelines also identified areas which private security organizations can collaborate with the public enforcement agencies, i.e. â€Å"networking, information sharing; crime prevention; resource sharing; training; legislation; operations; and research and guidelines† (Connors, Cunningham, Ohlhausen, Oliver, and Van Meter, 2000). By entering into formal memorandum of agreement or understanding, each sector’s role, duties, and scope of powers are properly delineated to fit into the priorities and policies. Such formal agreements will give both sectors direction and clarity with respect to the procedures to be properly taken and implemented. Networking refers to discussion and meetings with the private sector to thresh out possible solutions to problems as well as limitations. Information sharing is the central component of the partnership. â€Å"Information sharing includes planning for critical incident response, protecting infrastructure, enhancing communications, minimizing liability, and strategically deploying resources† (Connors, Cunningham, Ohlhausen, Oliver, and Van Meter, 2000). Thus, meeting and conferences between representatives of both sectors is a must. Crime prevention also translates to terrorism. Terrorist acts may include initially lesser crimes to accomplish their goal of terrorism. Clearly, all information gathered from partnerships for crime prevention and peace and order may be very useful for combating terrorism. All information notwithstanding the absence of unlawful activity therefore must be shared such as those which involve unusual and suspicious activities. Technical knowledge and training may be shared by the private security organizations to the public enforcement agencies considering that the latter may lack this. Both sectors must identify legislation and assist the law makers in making these laws more responsive to the present situation. These laws should be modified if need be to be useful to both sectors in combating terrorism† (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). Both the public enforcement agencies and the private security organization may collaborate in the operational areas. This refers to joint sting operations, investigation of computer crimes and ‘white-collar’ financial fraudulent activities. Research papers and guidelines may be drawn by both sectors with respect to personnel policies and standards of the security personnel. Uniform standards and policies must be made for recruiting, selection, accepting and hiring security personnel. It is also suggested that liaison officers should be carefully trained and picked from the supervisors. They should have a clear and deep understanding of the goals and objectives of the partnership. The problem lies in the selection of those for the private security organizations as it has been recognized that they have the lack of prescreening and training standards. Thus, it was further suggested that an advisory council formulate these standards so that choosing a liaison officer as a representative of the private security sector would not be as difficult as it has been (Morabito and Greenberg, 2005). In sum, the success of these collaborative partnerships rest in the full sharing, cooperation, and coordination from both sectors which may only be achieved when each of the members have reached a deep understanding of the importance of their roles and scope of their powers. By reason of the importance of homeland security and on the part of the government, it has in fact allocated a larger amount of budget to counter terrorism. Partnerships are encouraged so that geographic territory can be covered extensively. Legislation is being addressed by modifying and or by enacting new laws to support the government’s call against terrorism. Representatives from both sectors must also coordinate with the legislators so that problem areas can be identified and can be resolved by means of legislative enactments or amendments to existing laws so that it can be more responsive to the needs and objectives of the existing collaborative partnerships. References Bocobo, J. 2005, Community Policing as the Primary Prevention Strategy for Homeland Security at the Local Law Enforcement Level Homeland Security Affairs. Retrieved on November 6, 2007, from http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=1.1.4 Connors, E., W. Cunningham, P. Ohlhausen, L. Oliver, and C. Van Meter. 2000. Operation Cooperation: Guidelines. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Department of Homeland Security–Office for Domestic Preparedness. 2003. Office for Domestic Preparedness Guidelines for Homeland Security. Washington, DC: DHS. Morabito and Greenberg, 2005 Engaging the Private Sector: Law Enforcement and Private Security Partnerships, USDOJ. Retrieved on November 4, 2007, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/210678.pdf. Morriss, A. 2006 The Public-Private Security Partnership: Counter Terrorism Considerations for Employers in a Post 9/11 World. Retrieved on November 4, 2007, from http://www.hastingsblj.org/archive/volume2/files/number2/9_Morriss.pdf. The 9/11 Commission. 2004. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Parachini, J., Davis, L., Liston, T. 2003 Homeland Security: A Compendium of Public and Private Organizations’ Policy Recommendations. Retrieved on November 6, 2007, from http://cipp.gmu.edu/archive/16_Randwhitepaper.pdf Pelland, D. 2002 ‘To help battle terrorism public and private sectors expand information sharing efforts. KPMG’s Technology: Insiders. Retrieved on November 5, 2007, from http://www.itglobalsecure.com/pdf/third_party/020913KPMG_Insider.pdf