Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Novak, Hunt & Shields

Daniel Oates Discusses Homeland Security

Aired November 24, 2001 - 17:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: I'm Robert Novak. Mark Shields and I will question one of America's leading police intelligence officers.

MARK SHIELDS, CO-HOST: He is Daniel J. Oates, who is currently chief of police in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

(voice-over): The governor of Connecticut described the joint federal-state effort to discover the source of infection for a 94- year-old woman who this week died of anthrax inhalation.

JOHN ROWLAND (R), GOVERNOR OF CONNECTICUT: We're working with the CDC and the FBI and state officials 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to track down and determine where this came from.

SHIELDS: But in Portland, Oregon, the police refused a Justice Department request for help in interviewing all Middle East male immigrants.

MAYOR VERA KATZ, PORTLAND, OREGON: The statute clearly says that any state law enforcement agencies cannot, based on these criteria.

SHIELDS: In Ann Arbor, Chief Oates also expressed reservations about the Justice Department request.

Dan Oates served 21 years in the New York Police Department, including four years as deputy chief, commanding the NYPD's intelligence division, with duties including liaison with the FBI. He was named chief of police in Ann Arbor on August 20.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SHIELDS: Chief Dan Oates, thank you for being with us.

Your colleague in Portland, Oregon, acting Chief Andrew Kirkland said, "The law does not permit us to go out and arbitrarily interview people whose only offense is immigration and citizenship." Your reaction?

CHIEF DANIEL OATES, ANN ARBOR POLICE DEPARTMENT: Well, I'm an attorney as well, and I haven't seen the statute he's referring to. I understand it's a state statute, and I'm a little skeptical about that interpretation of it. I would have to see the statute. It seems to me that we in local law enforcement, since September 11, have been clamoring for better communication, better cooperation with the federal government. It's really not fair to now say that when the federal government is asking for our assistance that we're not going to help. We have to find ways to help if we can.

SHIELDS: Well, finding ways to help is one thing, but over recent years, Chief, the charge of over-aggressiveness and the question of racial profiling has been directed mostly at state and local law enforcement.

Is this a case where the federal government is indulging in full- scale racial profiling?

OATES: Well, first of all, one of the curious things about this initiative is that most -- I and most of my colleagues, we've yet to be formally approached by the Justice Department as to what exactly is being asked of us and how we can contribute. And so, I think the thing for us to do is kind of reserve judgment until we are approached.

And I have had conversations with FBI officials here in Michigan. And as I understand it, the population of people that the government is probably going to want to interview include people who are here on temporary visas, many of them student visas, and fit a certain criminal profile similar to the profile of the 19 people who attacked this country.

Under those circumstances, I think the way to proceed and the way local law enforcement can help is that we are very, very good at contacts and communication with local leadership in any given community. And I think if properly approached, if the U.S. government made an approach to the Muslim leadership in a given community and sought their support for an initiative like this, there's a very good chance that there would be support for it. And I think that's the way to proceed.

NOVAK: Chief Oates, on November 5 in the "New York Times," you wrote an opposite-editorial-page column, and I'd like to read from it, from the beginning of it. And we'll put it up on the screen.

"The FBI needs to change its internal culture and learn to work closely with local police. Police know their communities better than FBI agents ever will, and there are a lot more of them -- 650,000 police officers compared with about 12,000 FBI agents. Only the local forces can provide the insight that is so crucial for good detective work."

And so, after that appeared in such a prestigious forum as the "New York Times," sir, did you get any personal reaction from the FBI?

OATES: I have. I've been one of the handful of chiefs that have been pretty critical of the FBI in the aftermath of September 11, and it comes from my personal experience in New York.

And I have and I -- in fact, the director of the FBI gave me a call. We had a very cordial, interesting conversation for about 20 minutes. So I have spoken to him. I've also spoken to local FBI special agent in charge, who said that among the consequences has been, that he interpreted my comments as being somewhat hurtful to the FBI.

So, sure, I've gotten some interesting reactions.

NOVAK: And what did you respond when he said it was hurtful to the FBI?

OATES: Well, you know -- but those of us who have close association with New York are very passionate about what happened on September 11. September 11 was a colossal failure of the U.S. government's intelligence services, including the FBI. And New York City is paying a price and will pay the price for a long time for that failure. We have to do better.

And so, we in public -- local law enforcement are subject to criticism all of the time. We learn and we grow and we become better agencies as a result of it.

I think it's fairly evident that some time in the new year there's going to be hearings in -- a congressional investigation of what occurred leading up to September 11 and how all of the federal government can do better to prevent it in the future. And that will be painful, it will be hurtful, but it's the best thing to do for the country.

NOVAK: Chief, on November 13, your colleague from Baltimore, Commissioner Edward Norris, who I believe you know, testifying at a congressional hearing, said -- and I'm going to put this up also on the screen -- "While progress has been made, the level of federal strategic collaboration with local law enforcement remains weak," end quote.

Do you agree with Commissioner Norris?

OATES: I think, generally, I do. I think there's some real good signs since September 11. I think the director is listening.

The best signs that I can think of are he's formed an advisory group of police chiefs from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. He met with them last week. He's going to meet with them monthly, I understand.

And the other thing I see some potential for improvement is, is he's, either through shake-up or as a result of September 11 or the natural course of events with a new director coming in, there's going to be some changes at the top of the FBI.

And those are two real good signs. And there's a lot more dialogue going on.

But fundamentally, I think there's some really important additional steps that need to be taken, and those are some of the things I talked about in that op-ed piece in the "Times." SHIELDS: Chief Oates, Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma has a unique position. He's the local official, obviously, and an ex-FBI agent. And let me put up what he had to say about federal law enforcement.

He said, "I was stunned and amazed at the patronizing, if not contemptuous, attitudes of the federal government toward state and local officials." He was speaking about an emergency smallpox bill last summer.

But is that a fair assessment and characteristic in your experience?

OATES: Well, when I was in New York for four years as head of intelligence, I was principal security officer for the city, adviser to the police commissioner and the mayor on security issues, including threats -- including terrorism threats. And I had a difficult time with the local office of the FBI.

And that's one of the reasons I've been so outspoken since September 11. I question whether we could have done more to prevent what occurred on September 11, had there been a better dialog between local law enforcement and the FBI. And I will question that for the rest of my life.

I firmly believe the FBI culture has to change, and they have to more willingly embrace us and use the full potential of local law enforcement.

That's why, by the way, I find it hard to criticize the Justice Department on this new initiative without knowing more about it, because I've been clamoring that we play more of a role.

SHIELDS: On that question itself, the FBI seems to have a point: that actually to become an FBI agent, one of the 11,000 -- it's rather an elite group; 11,000 people in the country with their qualifications, standards and all the rest of it; and yet, to be a police officer, one of the 650,000, in some places -- certainly not Ann Arbor, I'm sure -- but in Palookaville, the standards are a lot more flexible, aren't they?

OATES: Well, I don't know. I've been through some pretty rigorous background checks and screening for the two law enforcement jobs I've had with the NYPD and the Ann Arbor Police. I'm not sure I agree with that.

The real issue that I hear quoted, the number one reason why the FBI is so reluctant to share information is the issue of security clearances. So much of the information that they deal in, when it comes to the terrorist threat, is classified information.

And there are two relatively simple responses to that: One is declassify a lot of the information, and if you can't, then hand out security clearances. This is something that's completely within the FBI's control. There's no reason why there shouldn't be 10,000 -- the best 10,000 police officers in this country, the most talented people in each individual agency shouldn't have security clearances and be briefed in on the fight against terrorism and the hunt for infiltrators in this country. It's something completely in the FBI's control.

If they don't have the manpower to do the background checks -- and first of all, in our personnel files of police officers across this country, there's fairly thorough background checks. It's a good start for any investigator.

If the FBI doesn't have enough people to do the background checks, they should hire former FBI agents, former Secret Service agents, former Treasury agents -- people who know how to do background investigations.

And with the kind of money that is being talked about being spent in this fight in Congress, a few dollars to expeditiously do background checks would be a very wise expenditure.

I have a very talented sergeant and very talented detectives in Ann Arbor here, who watch all the crime in this town. And if they were briefed in, if I sent them to Detroit once a week or once a month and they were briefed in on the efforts here in southeast Michigan and they knew enough about the investigation -- they're extremely talented people. If something crossed their desk, they could make a connection that could help the FBI.

And if we suddenly had to -- if the FBI needed help, say, checking a flight school to see if there's any suspicious people learning how to fly planes, we could do that for them at the local airport here in half an hour. And opportunities would not be missed.

And that's the kind of model for cooperation that I think is necessary.

NOVAK: Chief, one more question before we take a break. There's been a criticism I've heard over the years about the FBI, that they are pretty good at accumulating a lot of data, getting a lot of questioning and testimony, but not very good in analyzing it.

Do you think that's a fair criticism?

OATES: I don't know. I can tell you this, that our local perspective, the kinds of things that we know about our communities across this country, there's a level of understanding and knowledge that the FBI really can't achieve.

So to the extent they need help analyzing information and making sense of it, the contribution of local law enforcement could be tremendous.

NOVAK: OK, we're going to take a break. And when we come back, we'll ask Chief Oates, just how secure is homeland security?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SHIELDS: Chief Dan Oates, on the question a homeland security and federal warnings about threats to homeland security, let me put up on the screen the words of a distinguished American law enforcement officer, namely you.

October 31 in the "Washington Post," you said, "The government must know more than it's putting out to law enforcement. You can only ratchet up so much and so often before the heightened awareness loses its effectiveness. It's hard to maintain a constant state of vigilance."

How much in danger are we of crying wolf when it comes to warning people, sort of in general terms, about a heightened level of security?

OATES: Well, if you remember, that quote came from a particular week when we got three or four of these such warnings with no specificity whatsoever. And also, it was the fifth or sixth week after the bombing where I, like my colleagues across the country, had really taxed our people to the max to do what we could to protect vulnerable locations, sensitive properties in the city. So there was a bit of frustration, I think, on the part of all of us.

It's interesting, I think it's changed a little. Just in the last two weeks, I've seen two threat advisories come out of Washington, a Washington field office, that had a level of specificity I had never seen before.

And that's a sign of improvement. But that during that period in late October we were just getting these vague warnings that there may be an attack at a certain time. And I think all of the media was expressing frustration with that lack of specificity.

SHIELDS: You are a police pro. And let me just go to one specific question, and that is, if Tom Ridge, the new director of homeland security, former governor of Pennsylvania, turned to you and said, "What are the three things, Dan, that we ought to do right now, the federal government ought to do, to improve security for the American population in this country of ours," what would your recommendation be?

OATES: Well, one point I've already touched, I think local law enforcement, especially in the larger cities of -- the urban areas, the areas that have the greatest immigrant population -- I think the FBI should do a better partnership with local investigators and bring more of them into the game, and shouldn't be wedded to this joint terrorist task force model that exists in the major cities in this country, where the FBI has all of the key leadership and strategic decisions and misses out on the creativity and insight that could be provided at the leadership or executive level in these task forces.

The next thing I think is an important amendment that is needed to the Patriot Act. And it's an initiative out of New York. It's got support on the Senate side from Schumer and Clinton and also from Hatch and Leahy, and on the House side from Weiner and the entire New York delegation.

And what it is, all of the references to the breaking down of barriers and transfer of information between federal agencies that were changed and improved in the Patriot Act. We need a second reference in all of those sections of that act that say that that same information can be shared with the chief executive officer of a given state or local authority, such as the mayor of New York, and state and local police.

We need a clear, unambiguous statement by the federal government, that this information is going to be shared.

One of the experiences we have in local law enforcement is, that even when FBI agents want to share information with us, they will tell us, "Well, we're bound by statute. Under these circumstances we can't release this information."

That amendment needs the support of the Justice Department and the attorney general.

NOVAK: Chief, we've just got a minute before we take another break.

Do you think that Tom Ridge needs more authority, Governor Ridge needs more authority, or do you think he's doing a good enough job as it is?

OATES: I think he's doing a great job without any authority. And that's a policy debate for the Congress. I think on the local level the most important relationship and the most important way for us to aid the terrorism fight is improving our relationship with the FBI.

And whether Ridge ultimately has authority over the FBI or not, I think the key player on that point it going to be the new director. And I see some encouraging signs that he's going to make change.

NOVAK: Sir, when you were with the NYPD, you worked with Rudy Giuliani as mayor of New York. Just curious -- how do you think he would have fit in if he had been named the head of homeland security? Would that have been a good fit for him or not so good?

OATES: Probably would have been a good fit, especially if Congress moves towards giving Ridge the kind of authority he probably needs.

NOVAK: One last question. There's been reports that you were doing what the -- questioning the militia in Michigan. Do you -- is that -- were they accurate? And why in the world -- the FBI was questioning you -- I'm sorry - about the militia in Michigan. Why in the world -- was there a homegrown threat that was not related to the Al Qaeda?

OATES: Yes, that's not accurate. What happened is, in the days immediately after the September 11 bombing, a bunch of people got together, including a local FBI guy, and we talked about areas where we might have a concern. And just because there has been a past history of militia activity here in Michigan, we just talked about it. But nothing was ever done substantively about it.

NOVAK: We'll take another break, and when we come back, we'll have "The Big Question" for Chief Dan Oates.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: "The Big Question" for Chief Dan Oates:

Chief, there has been a lot of controversy in Washington over the fact that the White House is being closed for Christmas tours for the first time ever, because of security. As a professional police officer, do you think that's necessary?

OATES: I'm not sure. I don't have the facts that they have. But in general, I think it's an extremely important time for us, and we need to remain vigilant. The White House, obviously because of what a symbol it is of the United States, it would be a more likely target than others. And I'm sure that the law enforcement professionals who have made that decision are doing the right thing.

SHIELDS: Based upon your own experience in New York, Chief, do you think that the Christmas parties at the White House, which is severely limited at this time, ought to exclude major contributors as well as the press? Aren't they a threat to national security?

OATES: Oh, I wouldn't want to go near that one.

(LAUGHTER)

SHIELDS: Chief Dan Oates, thank you so very much for being with us.

My partner, Robert Novak, and I will back in a moment with a comment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NOVAK: Mark, I was fascinated that Chief Oates told us that FBI Director Mueller called him after he read Oates' piece in the "New York Times," and he said it was hurtful to the FBI. As I understand it, the chief told him that when an intelligence failure that costs that many lives, there is going to be an investigation, that will indeed probably be hurtful to the FBI and a lot of other people.

SHIELDS: Bob, I'll say this, the tension between the FBI, federal law enforcement and local law enforcement is now very much out in the open, and more so because of people like Chief Dan Oates who are willing to stand up.

Now, he did say he was encouraged by the changes from Hooveritis that had gripped that department, the absorption with secrecy -- under new Director Mueller. And I think that was a helpful sign.

NOVAK: But, Mark, he did say that legislation is needed to change the distribution of information from the FBI. He said he would support that legislation. What I think really bothers the chief is the fact that they will not clear local police officers to get this intelligence information. We are not talking about reporters, we're talking about local police chiefs.

SHIELDS: He did have a good word for Tom Ridge, the governor of Pennsylvania, director of homeland security, in which he said he thought he was doing a very good job, but questioned whether he had the authority to really deliver and whether he needed new statutory authority. And I think that's open, and it's important, and perhaps even urgent, Bob.

NOVAK: I'm Robert Novak.

SHIELDS: I'm Mark Shields.

Coming up in one-half hour on "RELIABLE SOURCES": a journalist's firsthand account of the dangers of covering the war on terrorism.

And at 7:00 p.m. on the "CAPITAL GANG": a new government in Afghanistan, closing down the White House for Christmas, plus an interview with Queen Noor of Jordan.

NOVAK: Thanks for joining us.

CNN's coverage of America's new war continues right now.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com