Atlas Shrugged y el magisterio objetivista

Commitment

The change to ILP must start with the chief executive because if the leadership of a law enforcement agency does not understand and buy in to the concept, it will never be functionally adopted. The law enforcement executive’s commitment must be demonstrated through allocation of personnel and resources to develop and implement the concept. If agency personnel do not believe the leader is committed to the new program, implementation efforts will not be effective.

An excellent example of a leader’s demonstration of commitment is seen in the following experience:

When Dr. Gerry Williams was chief of police in Aurora, Colorado, in the late 1980s, he decided to implement community policing. There was a great deal of resistance, and he recognized the need to educate Aurora police personnel on the concept. He asked that a team from the National Center for Community Policing at Michigan State University prepare a 4-hour awareness program that would be mandatory for all Aurora police employees to attend on the change in policing philosophy. He also asked the team to offer the training at 12 different times throughout the day (over a 2-week period) that would cover every shift so all personnel would have the opportunity to attend the mandatory training on their regularly scheduled duty time. At each of the 12 sessions—whether offered in the middle of the night or the middle of the day—Chief Williams opened the training by making a firm statement that the movement to community policing was going to be the unquestioned policing philosophy to be used by the Aurora Police Department and that resources would be committed to ensure the change would take place. Chief Williams then sat down in the middle of the front row where everyone was certain to see him and sat through every one of the 12 sessions. It did not take long for the word to spread through the department that “the chief is serious about this” because he set other duties aside to attend the entirety of all the sessions. This was an important sign of commitment. Moreover, the chief answered questions during the sessions and interacted with officers on the breaks to reinforce his commitment.

Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies 112

Commitment begins with the chief executive’s true understanding of the concept.

In some cases, this has occurred after the chief executive has attended a training program developed exclusively from the executive’s perspective (such as the BJA program, “Criminal Intelligence for the Chief Executive”). A program such as this provides fundamental concepts that show the value of intelligence, demonstrates how intelligence integrates with the department’s overall mission, and permits the chief to interact with others who may not only provide reciprocal support but also may permit an exchange of ideas on how ILP may be used.

The chief executive should also formally articulate his or her support of the concept in a policy statement. The policy statement provides the organizational parameters of ILP and gives all members of the agency a tangible reference point for understanding how ILP is to be implemented and used.

Perhaps the best symbol of commitment is the dedication of resources to ILP.

Training agency personnel, assigning them to the intelligence function, and dedicating funding to the development and execution of ILP sends a strong message to agency personnel about the executive’s commitment.

It is also critically important to gain commitment to the concept from

commanders and managers because they are responsible for the actual execution of ILP. If commanders and managers have neither a clear understanding of how ILP can benefit the agency nor of their ILP responsibilities for directing personnel under their command, full implementation will not occur, regardless of the chief executive’s support. In all types of organizations, there have been instances in the management process in which middle managers have defeated a new initiative simply by not thoroughly ensuring that personnel under their command perform the duties necessary to make the initiative work. This reflects an old adage in management: “Managers may not be able to turn the water on, but they can easily turn it off.”

Component 1—Key Takeaways

• The chief executive must understand and support the concept of ILP:

- How ILP fits into the department’s mission - Articulated commitment to the concept

• Commitment of people and resources:

- Training

- Infrastructure development

• Commitment must extend throughout the chain of command

Partnerships

Effective ILP requires the development of a range of partnerships. There are good examples of this in the counterterrorism area (such as the Terrorism Early Warning Groups) as well as the precedent established in community policing. The range of partnerships includes the private sector, nonlaw enforcement government service, and the community. Each can be an important source of information for the intelligence process. The fundamental rationale for public-private partnerships

Chapter 6 113 is based on the fact that when more people know what to observe and how to

report it to law enforcement, the greater the probability of collecting information that may be used to stop a terrorist attack or criminal enterprise.

There is a precedent of success for including community members as part of the information-collection process, as seen in programs used by the Turkish National Police, Israeli Police, and the London Metropolitan Police. Each has developed programs aimed at the community to report specific types of information—

essentially, “intelligence requirements”—to the police to aid in preventing terrorism. Certainly, if community partnerships are effective in these diverse cultures, they can be effective in the United States. Moreover, public-private partnerships are a simple extension of many current programs used throughout the United States that deal with crime, ranging from Neighborhood Watch to Volunteers in Police Service.

One question that emerges is whether the average community member is interested in participating in ILP programs. A pilot program offered by the Regional Community Policing Institute at Wichita State University extended an open invitation to local residents in Wichita, Manhattan, and Topeka, Kansas, to attend a public awareness session on citizen reporting of suspicious activities possibly related to terrorism. More than 600 people attended the sessions in the heartland because of their concern about the threat and their desire to contribute to counterterrorism initiatives.

Engaging the community can significantly increase the information-collection parameters for the intelligence process. Several key factors make these partnerships work effectively for ILP.

• The law enforcement agency must establish trusted relationships with people through local law enforcement officers. Typically, a “meet and greet” alone will not suffice. Information that may be sensitive, confidential, or even fearful may need to be exchanged. As a lesson learned from community policing, the bond of trust established through an ongoing dialog becomes a critical element.

• Once trust is established, an effective means of two-way communication must be established with each individual. In some cases, this may be technological, such as e-mail or telephone. In other cases, individuals may feel comfortable sharing the information only on a one-to-one basis with their trusted law enforcement partner.

• Just as with officers, training—or public awareness—about the signs and symbols of terrorism and organized crime is important for enabling the partner to identify substantive information that should be reported. For example, a community partner may see a symbol, tattoo, or foreign word that is symbolic of a terrorist or criminal entity, but if he or she has not been trained to recognize these symbols, the information will not be reported.

Similarly, community and private partners should receive information about behaviors that are unusual and which suggest criminality in order to enhance their specific awareness.⁵

5 A good example of behaviors is found in the Michigan State Police video, Seven Signs of Terrorism, which is available for public distribution. www.michigan.gov/

msp/0,1607,7-123-1564-155763--,00.html.

Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies 114

• Partner training should also include instruction on the type of information that should be documented for reporting to law enforcement. While documentation of behaviors, evidence, vehicles, and personal descriptions are second nature to law enforcement officers, it is not a customary practice for nonlaw enforcement personnel. Explaining what kinds of information should be reported—along with date, time, and location—is an important element in partner training.

• The agency should develop a policy and process to protect the privacy and safety of community partners. As will be discussed in detail in a subsequent chapter, there should be a privacy policy to protect business partners’ proprietary information that may need to be disclosed during the information-sharing process. Partners need to be informed of these policies in order to reinforce the trusted relationship.

A number of good partnerships have emerged, notably in larger law enforcement agencies. The New York (City) Police Department’s SHIELD⁶ is a comprehensive information-sharing and public information program. The Delaware Information Analysis Center⁷ has established formal relationships with nonlaw enforcement government organizations and targeted private-sector entities for information sharing over the secure Automated Trusted Information Exchange network.

The Nassau County (New York) Police Department created the Security/Police Information Network as a comprehensive public-private information-sharing network that is stratified by sectors and divided between vetted and nonvetted information-sharing partners using e-mail and periodic meetings. There are certainly other examples, but the point is clear: Partnerships are critical, there are models to provide guidance, and partnerships must be established throughout America’s communities, not just in major metropolitan areas.

Illustrations of Partnerships in Other Countries

Israel. During the height of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, the Israeli Police sought alternative methods for gaining information about planned terrorist attacks. One technique was to establish community partnership patrols that worked with the residential Palestinian population is such cities as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Israeli community partnership officers developed trusted, often confidential, relationships with many Palestinian citizens in these cities with the expressed intent to gain information or indicators about possible terrorist attacks. The motives of the Palestinians were quite simple: Many of the Palestinians who worked and resided in Israeli cities had been victims of terrorists’ attacks alongside the Israeli victims.

Turkey. After a series of terrorists attacks in Istanbul in November 2003, the Turkish National Police (TNP) interviewed captured terrorists to learn how they were recruited into the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and the Turkish al-Qaida. It was learned many were recruited in high school and often initially participated with the group out of social pressure rather than commitment to the group’s cause. As a result, the TNP began outreach and education programs in the high schools both to dissuade young people from joining these groups and to gain information that could be used in the intelligence process.

6 See www.nypdshield.org.

7 See dsp.delaware.gov/

Intelligence.shtml.

Chapter 6 115

8 Chapter Annex 6-1 is a community handout used by the Wichita State University Regional Community Policing Institute to emphasize these points.

As may be expected, the development process and expected outputs differ somewhat between community partners and private sector partners