|
Home
IFPO
Membership
Educational
Programs
Recertification
Guide
Member's
Only Area
Articles
and Reports
Publications
Security
Resources
IFPO
Certified Instructors
Industry
Testimonials
Corporate Members
IFPO
Accessories
FAQs
Contact
IFPO
|
|
The Use of Interagency Liaisons and the
Fight Against Terrorism
Submission to IFPO
May 2, 2003
Linda Kropp
Kylee Notaro
Lindsay Sokol
Introduction
Terrorism is defined as "Strategy employing the use
or threat of force to achieve political or social objectives"
(Hertig, 2002, p.142). Liaison refers to when two or more
groups can work together to achieve a common goal. Since
the events of September 11th there has been a growing need
for liaisons between security, government, and private industries
in order to prevent horrific terrorist attacks in the future.
There have been some new programs implemented to help with
this current liaison issue, but not even the new Homeland
Security Department has been able to bring the F.B.I. and
C.I.A. together; the two main components needed in unifying
efforts against terrorism.
Post September 11th
Since September 11th, the management personnel of security
departments have focused more on the need for efficient
security measures to be taken (Harowitz, 2001). These new
security measures would enable better visitor access controls,
better elevator controls, and more surveillance. The new
surveillance, such as sensors, is intended to be automated
software (Harowitz, 2001). There is much need for this new
equipment and liaisons between agencies that will use this
type of surveillance, so they can work together and solve
problems more quickly.
A team known as the Building Performance Assessment Team
(BPAT) which includes experts such as structural and fire
engineers, blast-effects specialists, building designers,
and investigators, performed an extensive study on the World
Trade Center (Gips, 2002). The specialist's main focus was
to see what caused the collapse and what lessons could be
learned from all of this (Gips, 2002). This group was sponsored
and supported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and put together by the Structural Engineering Institute
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, known as SEI/ASCE
(Gips, 2002). These organizations are working together to
try to prevent this from re-occurring and to implement new
building designs. In their report it had been noted that
the two towers were built to withstand an impact of a jet
on a smaller scale then the actual 707 aircraft used in
the attacks (Gips, 2002). Building engineers also discovered
that specific design features were employed in the twin
towers that helped keep the buildings from collapsing for
as long as possible (Gips, 2002). The planes destroyed between
27 and 32 columns, which gave the Trade Centers the support
needed to keep standing. Many experts say that the buildings
remained standing after this happened because of their size
and the exterior columns having been placed so close together.
Cause of Towers Collapsing
The FEMA/ASCE study confirmed that what caused the buildings
to ultimately collapse was the fire started by the jet fuel,
which melted away the interior structure and spread throughout
the buildings (Gips, 2002). The sprinkler system was unable
to function properly because the impact by both jets destroyed
the active water supply. The researchers went on to explain
that the system probably would not have functioned properly
because the flames would have taken over making it impossible
to extinguish the fire (Gips, 2002). Another problem was
the stairwells, which were too close together and after
the jet impact many exit routes were blocked off. Chicago
engineer, W. Gene Corley, commented in regards to the stairwells,
that engineers feel it is more appealing to spread stairwells
out. Therefore, if there is an impact there would be a better
chance that the impact won't take out all the stairwells,
as it did in building one (Gips, 2002). The main areas of
the building structures that needed improvement which were
revealed in this study and others, were the following:
- Support structures or columns
- Stairwells
- Fireproofing techniques
Building Codes and New Construction Ideas
Jonathon Barnett, a member of SEI/ASCE, suggests that new
building codes may not need to be changed. The trade centers
were built in the sixties and seventies, and building codes
have changed since then. Based on the limited data he possesses,
Barnett feels that there is no need for change in building
codes because they were sufficient codes. Robert C. Wilbe,
executive director of the National Conference of States
on Building Codes and Standards, agrees with Barnett: "There
are just some things that a building will not stand up to"
(Gips, 2002, p.58).
The president of Hinman Consulting Engineers in San Francisco,
CA, Eve E. Hinman, gives several new ideas on how the construction
of the World Trade Center may have led to the high death
toll. Hinman believes that there are new structural measures
for building designs that can be implemented with minimal
cost; an example would be some of the measures utilized
to strengthen buildings in seismic zones (Harowitz, 2001).
These may not have necessarily prevented the towers from
collapsing; however, she insists that "they could help
increase the number of survivors from a less devastating
attack" (Harowitz, 2001 p. 42). The importance of construction
is prominent, as Eve Hinman described; but rescuers, builders,
and law enforcement officials all need to work together
in creating a safe and secure environment for future employees.
What Have We Learned?
A most important lesson learned from September 11th is the
need for stronger liaisons between government agencies,
police departments, security officials, builders, and rescue
agencies. However, many are unsure of how many reforms are
needed for new building measures.
The growing terrorism problems and the attacks on September
11th should have had an impact on liaisons between government
agencies, police, and security personnel. They should be
able to work together to stop the threats that terrorists
pose on our country, but this is not the case. More and
more we are seeing a gap between these agencies, which needs
to be resolved.
Problems With Liaisons
According to a study done in the 1970's, by the Private
Security Advisory Council, "The major barrier identified
by the Committee is a role conflict, which manifests itself
in the lack of clear role identifications, perceptual distortions,
and mutual negative stereotyping between private security
and law enforcement" ("Law Enforcement,"
1976). Law enforcement agencies and private security organizations
were both invented to perform protective functions in society.
However there are clear differences in their organizational
structures, their protective roles, and the primary beneficiaries
of their services. Major differences between these two groups
stem from whether they are government agencies or private
corporations. These discrepancies are the underlying reasons
for conflict between private security and law enforcement
("Law Enforcement," 1976).
Public and private groups do not always work well together.
Public interest and concerns are the main focus of law enforcement,
while private security is concerned with private matters.
The main areas of conflict between them are lack of mutual
respect, communications, cooperation, standards, perceived
corruption, and the lack of law enforcement knowledge of
private security ("Law Enforcement," 1976).
According to Hertig (personal communication, April 8, 2003),
in order to solve the current liaison problem, "The
first step is that there needs to be an understanding of
the role and purpose of each organization, examine the capabilities
of each organization, meet with and get to know the key
persons in the other organizations, and consider meetings
or joint training exercises or hosting seminars that various
organizations can attend." Once these liaisons are
developed they must be maintained through "respect,"
acquiring relations with work peers, "know the law,
know the policy." It is also crucial to keep incident
scenes protected, be thorough at initial investigations,
and be proficient at court cases and presentation of material
in court. One must have good communications with other agencies,
"joint training," and maintain a membership with
either law enforcement or investigative organizations.
Although good liaisons are scarce certain organizations
have been making attempts in creating new and strong relations.
The ASIS International website helps in forming liaisons
by providing many links to other organizations. One such
organization is the Awareness of National Security Issues
and Response, ANSIR, created by the FBI. The FBI has been
providing awareness information to the ANSIR organization
as a part of its national security mission. The information
given helps in informing United States persons, corporations,
and institutions to intelligence and terrorist activities
(ASIS International, 2003).
These large organizations are setting examples and creating
new opportunities for smaller entities such as individual
security professionals to strengthen their liaisons. Randy
Rice (personal communication, April 25, 2003), Regional
Security Director of 14 shopping centers, gave the suggestion
of allowing private security to have direct radios with
police, fire departments, and EMS. This will in turn allow
security forces to act more quickly when disaster strikes.
"It's our property, who knows it better than us?"
Rice stated. Allowing these groups to work in their familiar
areas cuts down on the amount of time it takes for others
to respond. The more functions that the private industries
are involved in, which do not have to be performed by the
police, the better.
There are ways in which liaisons can be formed between
different law enforcement and security agencies, but there
seems to be that void somewhere that is not being filled.
The gap lies somewhere within our government, as soon as
we can get our government working properly, security and
law enforcement agencies will most likely follow, forming
stronger liaisons.
Assessments Government Made After September 11th
One of the first assessments our government made was to
try and improve the Airport Security as well as any other
means of transportation. This was done through the "Aviation
and Transportation Security Act." This Act formed the
Transportation Security Administration, and added more security
measures to most transportation facilities, including airports.
Many believe that what went wrong on September 11th is
that the FBI and CIA did not communicate well enough. Due
to this belief, President Bush saw the need for a separate
agency to focus strictly on terrorism. Bush stated that
the new department "would be devoted to overseeing
functions now dispersed among a confusing patchwork of dozens
of agencies" ("A Huge Government Reorganization,"
2003). The Department of Homeland Security was created to
prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce
America's vulnerability to terrorism, minimize the damage,
and recover swiftly from an attack.
The goal of Homeland Security is to restructure the government
so that the most important agencies, which are responsible
for protecting the country, can communicate effectively
and act swiftly, under the leadership of one individual
(Hall, 2002). The man chosen to lead this Department was
Tom Ridge (former Pennsylvania Governor). Given a budget
of $19 billion in 2002, and a proposed $38 billion in 2003,
this is in no way an inexpensive plan, but is expected to
be quite efficient in the event of another attack. Yet,
when asked about Homeland Security the public was hesitant,
only 13% felt a lot safer, 47% a little safer, while 39%
did not feel any safer (Hall, 2002).
Most states have implemented their own form of Homeland
Security. States such as Pennsylvania have created a specific
system for citizens to know how to spot and report suspicious
behavior (Pennsylvania Homeland Security, 2003). This system
has a step-by-step acronym for citizens to follow when they
come in contact with peculiar behavior that might indicate
terrorist activity. This acronym is known as SALUTE:
- S- Size (Jot down the number of people, gender, ages,
and physical descriptions)
- A- Activity (Describe exactly what they are doing)
- L- Location (Provide exact location)
- U- Uniform (Describe what they are wearing, including
shoes)
- T- Time (Provide date, time, and duration of activity)
- E- Equipment (Describe vehicle, make, color etc., license
plate, camera, guns, etc.) (Pennsylvania Homeland Security,
2003)
Other states have followed suit. New York and the District
of Columbia have made their own changes regarding Homeland
Security. In New York they have an Office of Public Security
as well as a Senior Advisor to the Governor for Counter-Terrorism.
The Department of Homeland Security has five major department
components. They are listed as:
- Border and Transportation Security (BTS)
- Emergency Preparedness and Response (EPR)
- Science and Technology (S&T)
- Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP)
- Management (U. S. Department of Homeland Security, 2003)
Prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,
ASIS had formed its own councils that are similar to the
divisions of the Homeland Security Department. The Transportation
Council within the ASIS website coincides with the BTS division
in the Homeland Security Department. Both focus on the security
of the transportation systems within our country. Another
council created by ASIS is the Disaster Management Council.
This council is equivalent to the EPR component of the Homeland
Security Department. They were both formed to create emergency
response measures for our nation in the event of a terrorist
attack or natural disaster (ASIS International, 2003). These
two organizations and their sub-divisions have the potential
to form a strong liaison.
Private industries have also been affected since the attacks
on September 11th. Security in most work places has been
raised. Those who have been considering installing new means
of security were ordered to put them in as soon as possible.
In the Security Management magazine they noted that, "Attention
was being focused on better visitor access controls, better
elevator controls, and more surveillance that included some
form of automated 'intelligent' software that can, for example
send an alarm when a person leaves a bag or parks a truck
where they shouldn't" (Harowitz, 2001, p.42).
Conclusion
Prior to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, liaisons
within security, government, and private industries were
in place but not actively maintained. After the attacks,
it became obvious that the current liaisons were not strong
enough. New measures have been taken to strengthen these
relations with the hopes of preventing any future terrorist
attacks. Even though these new measures have not been put
into full effect, should the situation arise, we are better
prepared to prevent and recover from terrorist attacks.
References
ASIS International. (2003). ANSIR: Awareness of national
security issues and response. Retrieved April 27, 2003,
from http://www.fbi.gov.
CNN News. (September 6, 2003). A huge government reorganization
for homeland security. Retrieved April 9, 2003, from
http://cnn.usnews.
Gips, Michael A. (2002, September). Reexamining premises
for high rise design. Security Management, 46-82.
Hall, Mimi. (November 26, 2002). New homeland security
faces challenges. Retrieved April 9, 2003, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com
Harowitz, Sherry L. (2001, November). Rebuilding on security's
solid foundation. Security Management, 42-44.
Hertig, Christopher A. (2002). Counter terrorism and VIP
protection. Davies in Minion, (Ed.), Protection Officer
Training Manual, (pp. 142-149). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hertig, Christopher A. (2003). Investigation: Concept and
practices for security professionals, Davies in Minion,
(Ed.), Protection Officer Training Manual,
(pp. 17-19). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Law enforcement and private security sources and areas
of conflict. (August, 1976). Private Security Advisory
Council. 2-5.
Pennsylvania Homeland Security. (March 26, 2003). Spotting
and reporting suspicious behavior in Pennsylvania is as
easy as 1, 2, 3. Retrieved April 27, 2003, from: http://www.homelandsecurity.state.pa.us.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2003). DHS organization.
Retrieved April 30, 2003, from http://www.dhs.gov.
Bio-sketch
Linda Kropp is a junior at York College of Pennsylvania.
She transferred to York as a junior from the State University
of New York, Albany. She is majoring in Criminal Justice
and is a current member of ASIS.
Kylee Notaro is a sophomore at York College of Pennsylvania.
She is majoring in Criminal Justice with a minor in Information
Systems.
Lindsay Sokol is a sophomore at York College of Pennsylvania
and a current ASIS member. She is majoring in Criminal Justice
with a minor in Sociology.
|
|