From Homeland Security NewsWire:
Rep. Peter King, House Homeland Security CommitteeAl Qaeda "very much alive"; U.S. needs to be "aggressive and preemptive"
Published 9 September 2011
Representative Peter King (R-New York), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, reflects back on the 9/11 attacks, discusses critical lessons learned, and the greatest threats facing the United States over the next decade
Homeland Security NewsWire: Reflecting back on 9/11, what is the most valuable lesson that you learned from the attacks and has the U.S. government taken adequate steps to learn from its mistakes?
Representative Peter King: I would say the most valuable lesson that we learned from the attacks of 9/11 is that our national security posture was far too reactive in nature. In the case of 9/11, as we have historically, we waited for our enemies to attack us before responding. Some people refer to this as a “pre-9/11 mentality” or a “law enforcement approach to terrorism,” a reference to the traditional policing method of investigating and solving a crime only after it has occurred.
As a result of 9/11, I believe we have largely learned that we need to be aggressive and preemptive when it comes to our national security. Increasingly, we do not wait for an attack before we respond, but we go after and disrupt the threat before an attack can be launched. Obviously, our military has adopted this strategy, as has the FBI, which works to investigate and disrupt planners of attacks. Law enforcement at all levels must follow suit, thinking more imaginatively and “outside the box.”
A number of significant reforms and reorganizations, including the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have improved our ability to be proactive in fighting terrorism. They have resulted in increased cooperation across federal law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community, and post-9/11 legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act has given these agencies new tools to defend us from attack and combat terrorists.
Though we are safer today than we were a decade ago, a number of the 9/11 Commission recommendations remain unfulfilled. According to 9/11 Commission co-chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, one of the most serious homeland security shortcomings continues to be the lack of interoperable communications for first responders. The 9/11 Commission recommended that Congress allocate additional spectrum to ensure police, firefighters, and EMS are able to adequately communicate during emergencies. Congress has not yet done so. I have introduced bipartisan legislation to reallocate for public safety the most effective portion of the spectrum, known as the D Block. Also, Kean and Hamilton pointed out that congressional oversight of DHS remains “dysfunctional” with more than 100 committees and subcommittees overseeing DHS. The result is wasted resources and conflicting guidance to DHS.
HSNW: Given the ongoing budget battles on the Hill
and efforts to reduce the deficit, what can DHS do to spend its money more effectively without jeopardizing security? As a follow up, what programs are you closely examining for potential cuts?
PK: As we work to reduce overall federal spending, we need to ensure that cuts in that spending do not undo the homeland security progress we have made in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. In addition to the heartbreaking loss of life, the attacks resulted in a tremendous economic and financial cost as well. Some seem to have forgotten that, and fail to recognize that one successful attack by al Qaeda, its affiliates, or its adherents here in the U.S., particularly in New York City, would likely have a hugely devastating nationwide economic impact, the losses of which would negate any homeland security budget reductions.
I have for years been working, and will continue, to see the homeland security grant programs at DHS reformed to ensure that funding – particularly that of the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) – is allocated effectively and efficiently and to those areas most at risk of a terrorist attack.
Shortly after 9/11, UASI was set up and provided critical funding to the seven highest-risk cities, but by 2010 the number of cities sharing in this funding reached sixty-four. At my urging, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has reduced the number of eligible cities from sixty-four to thirty-one. DHS should continue to look for ways to ensure that this important funding is allocated in a truly risk-based fashion.
The Committee on Homeland Security is conducting a thorough review of departmental programs and operations to identify additional cost savings that do not jeopardize security.
HSNW: The 9/11 Commission’s report card on the status of its recommendations gave a “failing mark” to the protection of civil liberties in light of expanded federal investigative powers. What immediate actions should the government be taking to implement the commission’s recommendations in regards to civil liberties and executive power?
PK: While I do not buy into the liberal talking point that civil liberties have been violated, more could be done to support the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission and established in 2007. For whatever reason, the Senate has not moved on two pending nominations to the Board and President Obama has failed to nominate additional members.
In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security has established a privacy officer and a civil rights and civil liberties officer to oversee such issues, actions which I support.
HSNW: Looking ahead, what do you foresee as the main security challenges for the next decade?
PK: Osama bin Laden is dead, but the threat from al Qaeda, its affiliates, and its adherents remains very much alive. As we have made progress securing our homeland over the past decade, it has become much more difficult for these enemies to launch an attack from overseas similar to the 9/11 attacks.
In recent years, we have seen these terrorist organizations working to recruit and radicalize individuals from with the Muslim American community – people who are U.S. citizens or who are here legally. For example, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, who killed thirteen, was a U.S. Army Major who had corresponded with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al Awlaki; the Afghan national arrested in 2009 for plotting to blow up the New York City subway system was a legal permanent resident; and the 2010 Times Square bomber was a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan. Al Shabaab, the Somalia-based terror group, is actively recruiting within our country and at least forty Muslim Americans from Minneapolis and other U.S. cities have been recruited by and joined the group. Many have disappeared to fight in Somalia.
In March, I convened a series of hearings to examine this dangerous and deadly trend. I was roundly criticized by liberals in Washington and throughout the media. Despite the criticism, I will continue the hearings. After all, the Obama Administration has recognized this radicalization within the Muslim American Community, and 9/11 co-chairs Kean and Hamilton recently referred to radicalization as “most troubling.”
Rep. Peter King, House Homeland Security CommitteeAl Qaeda "very much alive"; U.S. needs to be "aggressive and preemptive"
Published 9 September 2011
Representative Peter King (R-New York), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, reflects back on the 9/11 attacks, discusses critical lessons learned, and the greatest threats facing the United States over the next decade
Homeland Security NewsWire: Reflecting back on 9/11, what is the most valuable lesson that you learned from the attacks and has the U.S. government taken adequate steps to learn from its mistakes?
Representative Peter King: I would say the most valuable lesson that we learned from the attacks of 9/11 is that our national security posture was far too reactive in nature. In the case of 9/11, as we have historically, we waited for our enemies to attack us before responding. Some people refer to this as a “pre-9/11 mentality” or a “law enforcement approach to terrorism,” a reference to the traditional policing method of investigating and solving a crime only after it has occurred.
As a result of 9/11, I believe we have largely learned that we need to be aggressive and preemptive when it comes to our national security. Increasingly, we do not wait for an attack before we respond, but we go after and disrupt the threat before an attack can be launched. Obviously, our military has adopted this strategy, as has the FBI, which works to investigate and disrupt planners of attacks. Law enforcement at all levels must follow suit, thinking more imaginatively and “outside the box.”
A number of significant reforms and reorganizations, including the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have improved our ability to be proactive in fighting terrorism. They have resulted in increased cooperation across federal law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community, and post-9/11 legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act has given these agencies new tools to defend us from attack and combat terrorists.
Though we are safer today than we were a decade ago, a number of the 9/11 Commission recommendations remain unfulfilled. According to 9/11 Commission co-chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, one of the most serious homeland security shortcomings continues to be the lack of interoperable communications for first responders. The 9/11 Commission recommended that Congress allocate additional spectrum to ensure police, firefighters, and EMS are able to adequately communicate during emergencies. Congress has not yet done so. I have introduced bipartisan legislation to reallocate for public safety the most effective portion of the spectrum, known as the D Block. Also, Kean and Hamilton pointed out that congressional oversight of DHS remains “dysfunctional” with more than 100 committees and subcommittees overseeing DHS. The result is wasted resources and conflicting guidance to DHS.
HSNW: Given the ongoing budget battles on the Hill
and efforts to reduce the deficit, what can DHS do to spend its money more effectively without jeopardizing security? As a follow up, what programs are you closely examining for potential cuts?
PK: As we work to reduce overall federal spending, we need to ensure that cuts in that spending do not undo the homeland security progress we have made in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. In addition to the heartbreaking loss of life, the attacks resulted in a tremendous economic and financial cost as well. Some seem to have forgotten that, and fail to recognize that one successful attack by al Qaeda, its affiliates, or its adherents here in the U.S., particularly in New York City, would likely have a hugely devastating nationwide economic impact, the losses of which would negate any homeland security budget reductions.
I have for years been working, and will continue, to see the homeland security grant programs at DHS reformed to ensure that funding – particularly that of the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) – is allocated effectively and efficiently and to those areas most at risk of a terrorist attack.
Shortly after 9/11, UASI was set up and provided critical funding to the seven highest-risk cities, but by 2010 the number of cities sharing in this funding reached sixty-four. At my urging, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has reduced the number of eligible cities from sixty-four to thirty-one. DHS should continue to look for ways to ensure that this important funding is allocated in a truly risk-based fashion.
The Committee on Homeland Security is conducting a thorough review of departmental programs and operations to identify additional cost savings that do not jeopardize security.
HSNW: The 9/11 Commission’s report card on the status of its recommendations gave a “failing mark” to the protection of civil liberties in light of expanded federal investigative powers. What immediate actions should the government be taking to implement the commission’s recommendations in regards to civil liberties and executive power?
PK: While I do not buy into the liberal talking point that civil liberties have been violated, more could be done to support the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which was recommended by the 9/11 Commission and established in 2007. For whatever reason, the Senate has not moved on two pending nominations to the Board and President Obama has failed to nominate additional members.
In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security has established a privacy officer and a civil rights and civil liberties officer to oversee such issues, actions which I support.
HSNW: Looking ahead, what do you foresee as the main security challenges for the next decade?
PK: Osama bin Laden is dead, but the threat from al Qaeda, its affiliates, and its adherents remains very much alive. As we have made progress securing our homeland over the past decade, it has become much more difficult for these enemies to launch an attack from overseas similar to the 9/11 attacks.
In recent years, we have seen these terrorist organizations working to recruit and radicalize individuals from with the Muslim American community – people who are U.S. citizens or who are here legally. For example, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter, who killed thirteen, was a U.S. Army Major who had corresponded with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al Awlaki; the Afghan national arrested in 2009 for plotting to blow up the New York City subway system was a legal permanent resident; and the 2010 Times Square bomber was a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan. Al Shabaab, the Somalia-based terror group, is actively recruiting within our country and at least forty Muslim Americans from Minneapolis and other U.S. cities have been recruited by and joined the group. Many have disappeared to fight in Somalia.
In March, I convened a series of hearings to examine this dangerous and deadly trend. I was roundly criticized by liberals in Washington and throughout the media. Despite the criticism, I will continue the hearings. After all, the Obama Administration has recognized this radicalization within the Muslim American Community, and 9/11 co-chairs Kean and Hamilton recently referred to radicalization as “most troubling.”
No comments:
Post a Comment