States, localities slam U.S. government for not sharing info

State and local law enforcement officials sharply criticized the federal government on Wednesday for failing to consistently share information about counterterrorism efforts, pointing to a lack of a central authority for promoting data exchange.

Comment on this article in The Forum.The 19,000 police and sheriff departments nationwide have the capability to feed information regarding terrorism and crime to state fusion centers, which then try to create a more complete picture of potential threats in their local areas. But no national network exists so state and local law enforcement agencies can share the information or supplement other data collected by federal agencies, according to a panel of witnesses who testified before the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment.

"It should be systemically established that all the departments are networked throughout the states," said Leroy Baca, sheriff of Los Angeles County. "Terrorist activities can occur in any part of our country -- rural America, urban America or major cities. Standards, technology and [combining information] together are key in what we call a national counterterrorism strategy. ... [State and local governments] want to be part of the process of reviewing some of the more critical information, [otherwise] when the next [attack] occurs, we're going to blame the feds."

John McKay, a law professor at Seattle University who teaches a course on laws governing national security and terrorism, graded the federal government a "generous" C- in information sharing with law enforcement at the state and local level. Part of the problem is the lack of ownership over efforts, he said.

"One might ask the question -- who is in charge? The answer is no one," McKay said. "Who is designing the standards that can be implemented? They're not in existence. Fusion centers don't have views of data, [nor is there a] legal obligation for fusion centers to share data with the federal government -- none. Federal government has an important mission to acquire [and share] data, but no one has taken responsibility." McKay was among the U.S. attorneys fired by the Bush administration in 2006.

Russell Porter, director of the Iowa Intelligence Fusion Center and Intelligence Bureau, also expressed concern about "a lack of clarity of who has the lead responsibility" for efforts to exchange information.

The 2007 Implementing Recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Act, known as the 9/11 Act, gave DHS the authority to direct information sharing for counterterrorism efforts and unify activities across governments. During his testimony, Charles Allen, undersecretary in the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, claimed direct responsibility for overseeing such efforts. "We are getting information out for official use," he said. "But bureaucracy grinds slowly in Washington, so I haven't achieved what I've wanted."

Allen appointed regional coordinators to help drive the exchange of information, he said, and plans are under way for a national fusion center network. Furthermore, the National Counterterrorism Center, established by President Bush in 2004, serves as the primary government organization for integrating and analyzing terrorism intelligence, sends daily information on threats to state, local and tribal governments, and provides access to unclassified material through the Homeland Security Information Network, a computer-based communications system connecting all 50 states, five territories, the District of Columbia and 50 major urban areas.

One challenge to sharing intelligence on terrorists is much of the information federal agencies collect is classified. DHS increasingly approves clearances for state and local government officials so they can access certain material, but much of the sensitive intelligence collected by the agency, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Justice Department, is kept secret.

This month, the House passed the Overclassification Reduction Act, which would direct the nation's archivist to develop regulations that ensure agencies don't impose more restrictive classifications than the information in documents deserve. The bill, which is intended to increase information sharing throughout government, awaits a Senate vote.

"The only reason to classify [documents] is to protect sources and methods," said subcommittee chairwoman Jane Harman, D-Calif. "But in counterterrorism, the stakes are higher. If overclassification prevents one of these cops on a beat from uncovering a plot that blows up [the Los Angeles airport], I think that is a horrible consequence."

The lack of funding also hampers the exchange of counterterrorism information. Grants are largely responsible for financing efforts, but there is not enough to expand beyond regional initiatives. Furthermore, most funding focuses on supplies for first responders, which while integral, doesn't prevent attacks from occurring.

"[The Federal Emergency Management Agency] is not the right place for intelligence funding, yet all that we do is administer through FEMA," Baca said. "In the first five years [followingSept. 11], first responders got quite a bit of equipment and training. But preventing terrorism requires a different strategy, [with] systems to be fully integrated. ... We're all off reading on our own experiences, [but] a system that is self serving is not what we need."