Focus 580; Are We Prepared for Homeland Defense?

Good morning this is Focus 5 video morning telephone talk show. My name is Jack Brighton in for David Inge. Glad you could listen today during this our focus 580 will be talking about the challenges of homeland defense in the war against terrorism. Our guest is a law enforcement professional who has been writing advising on this issue for some time. Jim Corey is vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He also currently serves as director of public safety at St. Peters College in New Jersey. He served in several major law enforcement and public safety posts including chief at a housing project in New York City's Washington Heights section. He's contributing editor for chief of police and police magazine and police times and is the author of two books crime talk conversations with America's top crime fighters and assume the position police lines for novelists during this hour we'll talk with Jim Corey about the role of law enforcement agencies and other institutions in defending against terrorism especially in light of unspecified new threats as we talk with Jim Corr You are welcome to join us. You can call us around champagne Urbana at 3 3 3 9 4 5

5. That's 3 3 3 W while wealthy match the letters with the numbers. We'll have a toll free line. Anywhere you hear us around Illinois Indiana and elsewhere in the U.S. via the Internet use our toll free line that is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5 questions and comments are welcome. Again around. Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 W I L L toll free elsewhere. Eight hundred two to two oil. Jim Kor Good morning good morning. Thanks so much for joining us. Thank you of having me on. Let me ask you to begin by discussing the strain on police forces that we're currently experiencing for example in Atlanta already more than three hundred seventy vacancies out of 10000 positions as elsewhere officers are working 12 hour shifts since the attacks. Oh it's tremendous. The the the amount of stress on our nation's police departments and it's not just major city police departments it's police departments. You know the average the average police department in this country is

is is 10 officers. So even small townships find that their police departments are stressed especially with the anthrax scare. You know the media. Cover some of the some of the hoaxes but there are a tremendous number out there you have some individuals who are calling BS and or or there's an overreaction to some powder found. Right. So just the anthrax scare alone has has stressed out police departments and you're right. You know there's a lot of police officers who are working double shifts just you know we have to remember life goes on also and they have to deal with the every day the everyday incidents that they've been dealing with all along of course. Well you mentioned the anthrax scare you know soaking up police resources with mostly little reason would you say. I mean obviously something we need be concerned with but if somebody is eating a

powder don't and then later they notice you know there's white powder on their chair you know. They ought to put two and two together sometimes. Well there was one incident here in New Jersey where someone who was sorting the mail called a small town police department they they responded. They discovered it was the talcum powder from the gloves that the mail sorter was using to sort their mail. Yeah and you know and you know they have to they have to respond to these reports because for example I mention New Jersey in New Jersey there has been actual anthrax discovered in postal facilities. So there has to be a response. And it doesn't matter where we're talking about in the country. Police have to investigate these things. There's an enormous number of tips coming in. A lot of them anonymous tips about terrorist activity or planning by terrorists.

And police have to have to look at these things. They have to have to investigate these things. Well let me ask you talk a bit about that. Is there a way to sort of screen these calls I mean I'm sure that a lot of them are or at least some of them do have to be you know pranks or hoaxes or so forth. Do you have to respond to every single call or how do you how do you sort that out. Well I think that the calls have to be prioritized you know in the event that it's an anthrax scare. They were they will you know routinely send two patrol officers to investigate if it's discovered to be suspicious in nature. That's when the emergency personnel are called then. Same thing with bomb scares you know this country has had a drastic number of bomb scares it's it's kind of slacked off but in the first day since September 11th and one major city there were 100 20 bomb scares. So you could have the bomb squad you know running around the city you know answering the

schools. So what they did was they had you know patrol officers routine patrol officers answer answer the call a look into it if it became suspicious. That's when they would call an emergency services and the bomb squad to handle it if it was unfounded. And you know they would just they would just write up a brief report and that's it. Case closed. Well I haven't read about this but I'm I'm wondering from your perspective I'm sure you have a lot of sources that I don't. There are a lot of you know relatively whacko groups in the United States that have nothing to do with you know the Taleban or al Qaeda or anything. And I'm wondering if maybe some of those are kind of taking. Advantage of the chaos to you know sort of like you know pursue their agendas or their own version of chaos. Well you have these right wing extremist groups that basically hate the government. They look at the government as the enemy. We saw that in Oklahoma if you recall when that incident first occurred the the

primary suspects were Middle Eastern terrorists you know. Right. Terrorists and it was discovered that these were homegrown terrorists who had a different agenda then then the radical Islamics. So you know that is definitely a threat right now we don't know exactly who's responsible for the anthrax especially the strain that that was circulated to the news organizations. I understand another there was another victim in New York who worked in a hospital. She she's now deceased. They can't figure out how she contract the anthrax because. Tests of the hospital and of the area in which she worked came up negative so you know it's something to be concerned about. But you know we have to we have to find out who's doing it we have to stop them. Let me also ask you I think there's a lot of discussion certainly among the people who work in the media about how to deal with the stories and the information that's coming

out and we're all concerned about feeding fears at the same time. There is the you know the media is incredibly competitive and everybody wants to you know pursue the surprise etc. and I'm wondering from your perspective do you think the media is handling things responsibly or are we also feeding fears. No I think overall the media is acting very responsibly. I mean listen they are fulfilling their duty to this country they are out there informing Americans. The thing is that you know at the same time and I've seen it I've been watching the cable news station I've been listening to the radio listening to NPR. You know our own NPR. Affiliate here in the New York metropolitan area and they are telling people that you know the chances of contracting and threat you have a greater chance of getting into a car accident than you do of contracting anthrax so the message is out there a lot of people I think their fears are

irrational and I think they have to we have to keep sending that message out but overall I think the media's handling this this story with a lot of restraint. And will it be Pulitzer Prizes probably you know some of the coverage is extraordinary. You know some of these cable channels you know they they have their people in Afghanistan they have their people in Pakistan and you know I think they're doing an excellent job. Yeah. OK. Well we started talking about the strain on police forces and one other aspect of that strikes me as as relevant. A call up of military reservists might also hit police forces pretty hard. A lot of members of the police forces are also military service. Are we starting to see that be a factor. Well I know that in some locations some jurisdictions where very they have a problem with manpower. They're getting a deferment from the government so that they can you know maintain the number

of police officers out there. And I could understand that because you know we are dealing with a two front war we're dealing with what's going on in Afghanistan and we're dealing with terrorist attacks in our own country. So it would be ludicrous in my opinion be ludicrous to bleat deplete the people who are on the front lines of these attacks in order to send them over to you know Afghanistan or wherever they're going to send them. So I know in San Francisco in New York in a number of localities these police officers have been deferred and they can continue to enforce the law locally. OK. We've had to in the last well the last couple of days there have been some heightened alerts about again unspecified threats on American soil. And one of the questions that I've heard police in this area asking is What does that mean what does the heightened alert how are we supposed to respond to that what is

the difference between high higher and highest alert. How are the police actually supposed to respond to that. You know that's that's a problem. And I'm hearing that from my colleagues as well that one colleague who is a chief of police at a major metropolitan area you know said he found out about the high alert while watching CNN. You know that's not the way it's supposed to work. You know and I think that the federal government and you know the director of the FBI had a meeting with police organizations or the chiefs of police organization was one of them. The Sheriff's Association you know I think there were about 10 major law enforcement organizations who practically represent every police officer and commander in the country and they had a meeting. It was it was termed more of a pep talk than really you know a a meeting where intelligence was

was shared and the direction was good. So a lot of police departments they feel that they're on their own you know they get these alerts and it's you know up to them to determine what. Steps they're going to take what action they're going to take what policies and procedures they're going to implement to deal with. You know possible threats I mean we don't even know what the exact nature of the threat is. You know the locality the type of attack you know so you know police departments are basically on their own and hopefully you know that there's going to be more intelligence sharing between the federal government the federal law enforcement organizations and state and local police organizations because it sounds great on television we've just issued a high alert to all police departments throughout the country. They issued one to security directors from major corporations throughout the country. But you know what does that mean. What steps should we be taking. You know and I think that we have they have to

clarify that. You mentioned in for me. Sharing among local state and federal law enforcement and I think that a lot a lot of people have regarded that as one of the biggest flaws in our system that we have all these different agencies the FBI the CIA the NSA military intelligence Each branch of the military with their own military intelligence. To use what people see as an oxymoron and coordination communication cooperation becomes very difficult with all these players and of course you know the local police departments. Well that's been a problem and it was addressed in a number of studies that were conducted you know the last one was was submitted to Congress and March of this year and that was one of the primary primary problems that that was. That was indicated in the report. You know it's as if you know that they look at intelligence the intelligence community looks at this information as if it's you know precious pearls and they they want to lock it in the safe. You know

and it's not disseminated to people who really should have access to it. Now I can understand where you know the CIA and the NSA don't want to deal with local law enforcement but the FBI is charged with counterterrorism. That's their function. One of their functions and they should be cooperating with local law enforcement. As far as disseminating information. You know the New York City Police Department and I worked in New York. I may sound biased but the New York City Police Department has been successful on a number of occasions there was one plot to blow up the Lincoln Tunnel which connects New York New York City with New Jersey. And they found the terrorists out in Queens. They were Sudanese nationals out in Queens New York. They did that on their own without any information from the FBI. They did that through their own intelligence sources. So I think there has to be a share you know a lot a lot of local law

enforcement officers and commanders are frustrated because they are channeling their information to the federal the federal law enforcement officials. But there doesn't seem to be any feedback. There's no follow up. They're not not being kept in the loop so to speak. Well also I'm sure that each of these differing. Organizations have their own information systems that don't necessarily have a way of talking to each other. Oh yeah you know we you know I've been saying and so is our organization that there should be as part of any law enforcement organization local or state. There should be a unit or at least an officer who's charged with the terrorism terrorism function investigating and disseminating information. There should be a unit for example in The New York City Police Department as it stands even within police departments. There's a lack

of communication. The New York City Police Department a terrorist attack or terrorism comes under a number of different units within the same department you talk about 30000 member department. You have the bomb squad responsible for a certain area you have orse an explosion unit. You have the intelligence unit you have on CCB you Organized Crime Control Bureau which you know under under the New York City guidelines. Terrorism comes under organized crime. So you have these units who are operating. And a lot of times they're not communicating with each other. I wanted to ask you also about the new Office of Homeland Security that is now a new cabinet level position Governor. Tom Ridge former governor of Pennsylvania is the first director of homeland security in charge of the agency and I'm sure will take a while to get kind of ramped up and integrated with everything else that's going on do you see any movement in that direction.

Well you know I think that the media's got to give him a chance. You know there is a lot of criticism pundits have been making a lot of critical remarks about his lack of accessibility that he wasn't doing enough press conferences and now now he was ordered by the White House. I guess he was brought up on the carpet and he was ordered by the White House to at least have a free press conference is a week now. I could understand. You know I understand the nature the nature of journalism. They want information and they need information in order to to provide that to the public. But I think that you know we've got a new guy who's just starting a job you know. You know I don't think anyone even thought that he moved from Pennsylvania to Washington yet has his family with him. Right. You know I mean the guy started a new job overnight and we're expecting miracles. This is going to take time. It's going to take time to get our intelligence community working properly. It's going to take time to train

airport security whether they nationalize it or whether they upgraded at the local level. It's going to take time to train those people it's not going to happen overnight. The same thing with Homeland Security. He's dealing with a lot of different agencies and you and I both know because of the businesses that were in that that you know there's a lot there's a lot of turf fighting going on in Washington and there's a lot there's a lot I won't call it animosity but there's a lot going on between these different agencies. And he's got to be able to coordinate their action when as far as terrorism. So that's a that's a difficult job. It's a difficult job. If he wants to be more more than just a showpiece you know the drug czar position that was a showpiece when they would and I you know I liken this appointment to the drug czar we expect a lot from the drug czar and we got very little from from that position. You know I'm hoping that this will be more than just a showpiece position.

We're talking this morning during this hour focus 580 with Jim Corry He's vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. He is also director of public safety at St. Peters College in New Jersey and he's written widely on issues of law enforcement and counterterrorism. We're talking about homeland defense. The challenges ahead for the security forces and police and the other elements of society that are dealing with homeland security if you have questions you are welcome to join us the number around Champaign-Urbana 3 3 3 9 4 5 5. Toll free anywhere you here is 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. I also want to ask you about the new law that was just passed in acted by the president toughening penalties and expanding provisions for wiretap search warrant etc do you think that this is an appropriate measure to take is it enough to really give new and effective tools. Well I think it is you know one of the things in fighting terrorism and one of the reasons that we're so we're a target for them is because of our freedoms.

These these radicals in the Middle East and hate us because of our freedom and they call it decadence but you know we have a lot of civil liberties that are not enjoyed by other other nations. And you know when people talk and I mean law enforcement you know you would think you know he wants this kind of you know I'm very careful you know. You know I don't like giving up my civil liberties as a citizen I don't like doing it. You know that talk of creating a die down they would talk about creating a national police department while the police function is relegated to the state so you know right away I'm against that. We don't need a national police department. You know and as far as relaxing some of the restraints you know this is so supposedly a war and in war time you do have to make some concessions. The timeline I was a little uncomfortable with. I don't know why they had to have it for a five year period. You know I'm hoping we're not going

to be dealing with with the Taliban and al Qaeda for five years. You know it to the next president. Presidential elections. I'm hoping that it's not even going to be an issue in the next presidential election. That will be so successful that what we're doing. But you know overall Americans have to expect some inconvenience you know security by its nature whether it's national security or whether it's security at an airport or security in an office building. By its nature is inconvenient. A lot of Americans have a problem with you know at the beginning you know they're going to say you know whatever you have to do do it. But after time goes on they're going to they're going to be they're going to find themselves inconvenienced and Americans have the overall have the opinion that security is for the other guy you get a screening you have the guy I'm OK you know screening him. Right. Right. And you know it worked that way. You know so overall I think it's a good move. You know I

think that Congress I think moved diligently with that. You know some of the things that I was against are not in that bill and I'm glad the national ID card I had a problem with that. You know there were some things that I think a lot of law enforcement people had a problem with. Even though would make the job easier. But we have to think as law enforce we have to think as cops and we have to think of citizens also. And what is right and what you know just because it may work doesn't mean it's right. We have several calls to talk with let's include them in our call. Every station will go first to a listener on a cell phone and Chrisman Good morning unfocussed 580. Yes no question in my connection. Yeah we hear you are you're talking about the security bill that I think Congress now I'm under and has a decision been made whether that's going to be a federal or privatized security at the airport.

Right now it's still being debated and goes across party lines apparently the Republicans are against federal is a sion and that means having federal employees as security officers or screeners or whatever you want to call them. And the Democrats who want to have federal employees working security at our airports. My opinion is that it should be a hybrid system. The federal government oversight for example have supervisory personnel who work directly for the government responsible at the different airports for overall security. You know like we have all the land security director have an airport security director. And still use private security and there's a number of reasons why I favor that. Number one well first of all we have to bring up the salaries you know you can have a guy making $6 an hour and no health care benefits. You know dealing with a

really sensitive area at any any facility whether it's an airport or college or you know an office building. But you know if if for example and we saw this there was a man who got onto an airline airplane with a handgun concealed weapon who got through the screener. The screener was terminated immediately after they spoke to him that they terminated him. If it's a federal employee you're going to have a hard time doing it. It's a civil service position. You know and I'm not denigrating federal employees but sometimes you know in the private sector I know a lot of people in private sector will tell you they're very hesitant when they have an applicant who comes from the public sector because they think in different terms you know they're looking at job security they're looking at. Their compensation package and and you know that we have to we have to be realistic about it so that that's to that's the way I think they should approach it. You know

a hybrid department where you have the top guys working directly for the federal government not union employees or these are management positions. And then you use the private security sector whether they hire their own people. You know at the airport individual airports can hire their own people it's called proprietary system or contract system where you go to an outside firm and contract for security officers. You know I'm going to disagree with you. I feel like on September 11 our commercial airlines were used as a weapon. And I think that would. Square in the lap of the federal government too. But I'm not talking about royal employees. I'm talking about military personnel should be doing. We should have. Marine at our airport. I think there should be a Marine on every airplane. The problem there's a problem with that using the military internally that's why we

have National Guard forces. What we're seeing for example at JFK International Airport in New York there are National Guard soldiers there but it's a temporary thing these guys you know that it's a temper it's a part time job basically. They've called out the National Guard so these guys they leave their jobs they leave their families and they go and they take care of business. I think that's going to be a long term thing and you know I have a problem with using military people as police officers. I really do. I think they're trying to get away from the idea of police in this country being a paramilitary force that got us into a lot of trouble in the 90s. You know they have to be looked at as public servants people who are providing protection of life and property within the community. People who have a stake in the community and I have a problem with using outside military people for the police function. Well I think that people a lot of people in the military would agree with that. That's that. It's not their role

as you know that they'd be willing to serve if asked to but you know that's what the police are for essentially. Exactly yeah. We have a couple of the callers were a little pastor mid-point let me just mention again our guest is Jim Corry He's vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police. And we're talking about homeland defense in a variety of issues that pertain. We do have a couple lines open and about maybe 20 minutes left if you'd like to join the conversation you can call us at 3 3 3 9 4 5 5 that's around Champaign-Urbana. Anywhere else 800 to 2 2 9 4 5 5. You know we have someone in Taylorville next on line and I'm afraid we lost that person Sorry about that made them wait while one number three is next. Good morning you're on focus 580. Yes. I just like to Aria you are a part of the last gentleman's call. I can't agree with them I think those baggage screeners handlers and personnel people at airports should be military. Number one they would be federal employees. Number two they would cost us an arm and a leg and number three if they screw up their I get court martialed and do

hard time and they're going to know that they're going to they're going to a serious punishment. Well we're going to do to somebody making three dollars and a ho hum attitude about their job which a lot of federal employees do. And you know and the same thing happened. Their union will go to bat Foreman and they'll say oh well poor thing guy he just has some excuse for him you know. As for federal oversight of private Well the FAA has been in charge and they haven't done too cool a job as it is. So I really think that you know I would want to see the military in every facet of police life. But I think that this is a place where they can be certainly be utilized. They would be up front you know when people come through the airport. They would not only I think they were reassured to see them there but bad guys would think twice. Well Mr. Cory. Well you know the you know it sounds great to have the military and it

sounds great because people will feel better you know when when the National Guard more checked into JFK International Airport and then then the supplemented them with. US Coast Guard they were cheered when they started marching into the grand central train station in the heart of Manhattan. They were being cheered but basically they're there for a show piece they're not really doing anything. You know again they're not trained. You know I am for professional security officers whether they're private sector or federal government who are trained. If you look you know we've all traveled and we've all come into the airports. We have to go past customs you know Customs agents and we call it a gut feeling but they're trained in criminal profiling. They're looking for body language still looking for suspicious behavior. How many times have we heard that they just pick someone out of a crowd they search their belongings and confiscate contraband. Right.

So you know why can't we have that type of individual at the other end of the airport departures. You know again using the I have a big problem with using the military in the police function within our own borders. I don't want us to you know we have to watch out you know we don't want an armed camp here. We don't want to look like a third world country I do not want to walk the streets of Manhattan looking at people carrying semi automatic firearms you know more inching around the city tanks going up and down the block. You know that just does not appeal appeal to me. We have another call this off. The champagne on line number one next. Good morning on focus 580. Hello. I called and was out maybe organizing my thoughts as well as I should have but I'm really concerned about these people who want the United States military patrolling the streets and airports and everything else. I mean we have emergencies that call for extreme measures. But this

as a permanent policy really makes me uncomfortable and I think these people aren't even listening. And I think we have to remember it's been 30 years since large percentages of the population have been in the military or even know somebody who's in the military. They're trained as fall back on the old saw to kill people and break things and they're not supposed to do it to us. And I and it really concerns me that people are so eager to have our soldiers standing around with guns. I've lived in places where the army does that and it's not fun. And there seems to be this idea that you have a soldier with a machine gun or you have a minimum wage. No nothing. And you know there's some room in between there to find people who can do these jobs and can be trained. And I don't think it's horrible for that to be a career something that somebody can get that job and support their family doing and

have a stake in doing a good job and staying there. And as your guest pointed out there are ways for the private sector to cooperate with the federal government or the state government or out have ever they want to do it. But you know I I hope people will ratchet it down a little bit and and really think carefully before they make a great hue and cry to get the military standing all over this country with a gun that really concerns me that people are so so eager to have that happen. And I guess I hope there is at least something you can address if I didn't come up with an actual question but that I get partly I call because not everybody agrees with these people who want are we in the streets yesterday. OK thank you. Thanks for the call. Thank you. Thank you. I agree 100 percent with cola. You know we have you know

when we're talking about security at airports and security it you know I am a believer in the marketplace in a free marketplace. And if there are standards for example you can't low bid. You can't get security on the cheap. You know if there are standards you can you know attract the caliber person that you want or working in private security. It's a matter of compensation. And you know whether it's federal employees or you know private security you know there has to be a standard for pay scale. There has to be a standard for compensation packages for them. You know I think you know with the air with the airlines for example I was you know I've calmed down a bit I was really angry when I found out that some of these airlines pay their CEOs well over 12 million dollars a year and their parachutes you know if they lose their job are just

unbelievable as far as compensation. And yet you know one of the one of the most sensitive areas in airlines in that security they would going on the cheap as far as security personnel $6 650 an hour. A man cannot. What a family or a woman cannot support a family with six dollars and fifty cents an hour. What's going to happen is they're going to work a lot of double shifts just to try to make ends meet. And you have someone who's on their feet 16 hours you can't tell me that person is paying attention what's going on around him or her. Sure. Well you mentioned standards and I think that the standard before was whatever the market will bear and so that what we had is Airlines hiring security firms based on the lowest bidder. Right. And we saw what we got from that how do you raise the standards is there some you know law or some way that you know we can sort of mandate that you know you're right this force airports you know there have to be laws there have to be state national standards so that all are up there's

uniformity among the different airports throughout this country as far as pay as far as training as far as in service you know just because someone goes to a Security Academy or a police academy doesn't mean that they're going to carry that throughout their career you have to have refresher courses. So these these have to be included as far as standards. And we have to eliminate this low bid. Activity that we're seeing throughout the industry. You know one of the things I'm not seeing is talk about the security industry as it stands. You know it depends on what part of the country you're in. As far as the security agencies some agencies have to have a business license. That means that they don't have to have a professional license so anybody can open an agency. And we're what I've seen here in the New York metropolitan area a man owns a woman owns a cleaning company and they find

out that security is very lucrative. OK. What they do is they open up a security branch of their cleaning service. They have no background in law enforcement no background in security where you do have licensing requirements like I said it's usually a business license. In some states there's no requirement for background checks on security perspective security officers. You don't have to fingerprint them you don't have to check to see if you have a criminal record where you do have screening. It takes up to three months to get the fingerprints back from the FBI in the state. A law enforcement service. So you know you've got a guy who could be working at your site who has ties to terrorists. Working for three months before you even know about. About his his record and even then you know you know he may not have a record. You know these guys that on September 11th they had clean records. They had you know they got it had their visitors veces they had the

OK to go to flight schools within our own country. So you know there have to be standards throughout the country I think for the entire security industry for too long the government looked the other way while these fly by night companies you know they package their product with with fantastic brochures. They may hire a former FBI director or FBI supervisor or Secret Service guy and put him as the front man the salesman but the person you're getting at on your site whether it's a college or a business or an airport the person you getting on your site is not trained doesn't know anything about security and definitely does knowing a thing about counterterrorism. We have a couple callers. Talk with let's go next to someone on the campus here of the University of Illinois on line number one. Good morning you're on focus 580. Hi. In all these discussions any time it's brought up to federalize the security at

airports. Somehow state and federal workers always get lambasted. I'm really sick of it. There are plenty of serious honest people working for the state and federal government. One of the biggest problems with doing that is that the management decisions are always based on politics and corruption rather than what they ought to be just good decisions. And I also want to point out that I believe that you know this idea that they can't be fired if we make the security people at airports federal employees they can't be fired so therefore we can't do it. Well aren't FBI agents and CIA agents federal employees and customs agents agents which you just regaled is really great. Aren't they federal employees now CIA agents if they turn out to be counter spies they're put in jail. That's beyond just being fired.

And I would think that they would have to have security clearances and all the other things that FBI and CIA agents would have. So I really don't understand these arguments. Well Miss Corey what do you think. Well the CIA FBI agents or are in a class of federal employee Cole expected service in other words they are not part of civil service. And you know like like you said they could be terminated for an infraction it doesn't have to be treason or or spying. But you know what the Congress and members of Congress are concerned about is that you're going to have a class of employee that's going to be below FBI and CIA. I mean you know I'm sure they're looking at the dollar amounts of the pay scale for these employees and witches and how much did what happened cost nothing. How can you say that it's going to be too expensive to do.

It's look like this has cost we don't even know what it's going to have some telling you what what what politicians that I know are saying you know the core. They look they look at cost you know. You know I don't agree with it. I don't agree with that I don't agree with one Forsman agencies having to look at course for some function that they want to perform. But that's the nature of the beast. You know you have for example you know everyone everyone saying you know people who or expounding the the idea of using federal employees you know the FAA conducts funner ability tests over the years for airports across the country. Up to 70 percent of the time they were able to breach security. Why didn't they take any action. Yeah you know why don't we wait till September 11th. They already knew. You know same thing with the atomic power plants. You know they have done vulnerability tests. They used Navy SEALs to see if they can special forces

guys to see if they could breach the security systems at these facilities. And they did they did 100 percent of the time. You know and yet you know what why don't we wait until something like this occurs to start talking about what we should do this should have been done a long time ago. You know even the experts who we're seeing now you know the talking heads that came out of the woodwork after this this incident they said it wasn't a matter of could it happen or would it happen. It was a matter of when it would happen. So it's not like this you know we're shocked you know but I don't think we should be very surprised. Let me just take a moment to observe it it may seem. No not in a scene in adequate but it is still true that anyone who feels that we ought to federalize airport security or ought not to whatever your view you should definitely make that view known to your member of Congress in your senator because now is the time when those decisions are being made so that would be an appropriate response.

Certainly on the part of anyone who really cares about these definitely fully you know and which other where we go we have to make it is as efficient as possible. You know we can't we can't allow the government whether it's state alone or our federal government to put some pinhead in charge who is a bureaucrat and has no idea of security and no idea of law enforcement. And. You know hopefully it won't be a politicized position. Very good. We have another caller we'll include them. And we have just about five minutes left so we'll have to try to be brief somewhat on one number four in a row. Good morning. Focus 580. Yeah I appreciate that talking. I I. One thing that I wanted to make a point of is that the air industry has really been doing us a great disservice disservice in charging outlandish prices for their services so they can pay to see owes a lot of money. And I think that has been found out this point that US speaking to

now then will Congress decided Congress is that who will decide who we're going to have at the airports. Apparently that's already going to happen. You know Congress will decide. It will be up to the president to either veto or sign the bill whatever comes out of Congress I think. You know and that's the nature of the beast. You know there's going to be compromise. And I think it will be a hybrid approach which you know I advocate personally a hybrid approach. I'd like to see people from the private sector maintain these jobs at a reasonable salary and benefits and a complete compensation package under the oversight of the federal government. There should be one or office that handles it. You know it shouldn't be just part. You know the sky marshal program that's been around for years. Originally the FAA had it. They didn't want it so they turned it over to the U.S. Marshal Service and U.S.

Marshal Service really didn't want it. You know they wanted to spend their money on other areas. And what happened was you had like a handful of sky marshals left through attrition. And then we find out we've got to train a whole new batch of sky marshals which is going on right now. So you know there has to be somebody that we can go to and say hey what's going on. How come you're breaching security at our airports and nothing's being done. How come you know the security officers at this airport are fast asleep during a midnight shift which happened in JFK Airport by the way the New York Times broke that story a few years back. They were all sleeping people going by the machine. They're ringing like crazy and nobody's paying attention. So I mean you know we have to professionalize it. You know it's been a joke for years. We just have two minutes left and there are many things we could talk about but I want to ask you one slightly different question. You suggested that we should try to understand the reasons people turn to

terrorism. You've written an astute American foreign policy must take into account the reasons people turned out here and where appropriate infeasible address them to some people that. Sounds like accommodation and I think that we're undergoing a debate about that right now but I guess how do you find a balance. Well I would say you have to have compassion for the right you know to learn how you can get along with someone like them. But it's necessary to understand them you know. You know that's a basis for dealing with criminals or dealing with terrorists you know understanding what makes them tick that helps you with proof with creating a strategy for dealing with them. I think we were very naive. You know law enforcement and private citizens were very naive about the enemy you know and this this this war for too long we thought that they thought the same way we did and they don't they don't they think they have a different agenda. They have a different thought process than we do.

And you know we have to understand the enemy that that's basically what I meant. OK. Well we're here at the point we're going to have to stop. And I can only suggest. We'll continue talking about the subject. And if you'd like to read more than Also our guest Jim Corey. He's vice president the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's got a couple books. One crime talk conversations with America's top crime fighters and a new book out for novelist and titled assume the position police lines for novelists. And to you Jim Corey thanks so much for talking with us. Thanks for having me I appreciate it. All right.