Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Will Department of Homeland Security Be Effective?

Aired June 09, 2002 - 07:05   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.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: CNN has learned that the Bush administration toyed with the idea of folding the FBI into the proposed Department of Homeland Security, but supporters of the move argued that merging the bureau's intelligence gathering operation into the new mega agency would bolster the war on terror. White House advisers ultimately shelved that proposal, deciding the FBI should remain under the Justice Department and attorney general. Well, that proposal never made it to the president's desk.

Now a closer look at the war on terror and these latest developments, for that we turn to Mike Brooks. He's CNN law enforcement analyst and former FBI terrorism task force official. Good morning.

MIKE BROOKS, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Good morning, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Bright and early.

BROOKS: Yes.

PHILLIPS: All right, so you've got it right here. Here it is, the president's Department of Homeland Security.

BROOKS: That's it.

PHILLIPS: Now what do you think of this? First of all, your overall impressions.

BROOKS: Well, right now it looks like it could be another unwieldy bureaucracy in Washington. It's supposed to be one-stop shopping for all your anti and counter terrorism needs. Well, we go back a number of years ago when we had the National Domestic Preparedness Office within the FBI that was supposed to do the same thing as the Department of Homeland Security is doing. What happened to that? They weren't funded. They weren't given any power, and they weren't really trusted by the first responder on the street where the rubber meets the road.

PHILLIPS: Why?

BROOKS: It's just -- I think at the time they were looked at, you know, as here comes the government again to the first responder world, police, fire, EMS. They're going to give us training. They're going to give us equipment. They're going to -- they're going to make everything happen for us and nothing really happened. They did get some training out of this because of presidential decision directive and they -- and they got some equipment, but not as much they needed. The department was kind of cut down. I think it has seven people in it now. In fact, that's going to be absorbed into this new Department of Homeland Security.

PHILLIPS: So if that office of preparedness would have been taken seriously, what kind of positive effects -- how could it have influenced history, I guess, I should say?

BROOKS: Well, yes, hindsight is 20-20, but had this actually department had been effective enough and been funded and given power, it may have -- it may have had some effect. It may have driven policy a little bit better to better prepare us for what happened on 9-11. But again that's -- you know hindsight is 20-20, but it wasn't funded. They weren't really trusted.

PHILLIPS: All right, looking at this new homeland security idea here, this proposal, where does the FBI fit in?

BROOKS: Good question. I don't see it anywhere. The only law enforcement agencies you see looking at the organizational chart, you see Border Patrol. You see Coast Guard, Customs and U.S. Secret Service as a law enforcement entity. But you do see little pieces of the FBI that are going to be part of some of the different groups here. You see the National Domestic Preparedness Office. You see the National Infrastructure Protection Center, which is also under the FBI right now.

But on the analysis part of it and the physical assets, I -- you know, I don't know. It doesn't look like it's going to be anywhere and -- but one of the -- the most important things, I think, is reporting directly from the secretary is the state local and private sector coordination. There -- you can't have a bureaucrat who's running that. You need someone who can go out there, walk the walk, talk the talk, talk to the police, fire, EMS people, talk to the people on the front lines on this -- on our war on terrorism and be able to talk to them and find out what their real needs are. And I think that was one of the problems that the FBI had in the past.

PHILLIPS: I thought the FBI was always looked at as the main agency for crisis.

BROOKS: They are. Right now it's the FBI who deals with crisis management of a terrorist incident, and you have FEMA who deals with the consequence management of a terrorist incident, and we see FEMA in this particular role in the new Department of Homeland Security, but where the FBI actually fits in on the crisis management side, that's a good question.

PHILLIPS: All right now, a couple of weeks ago you and I have been talking a lot about this. You were on, we were talking about these warnings coming out with regard to divers and swimmers and small planes. Now we're seeing this warning coming out. Puget Sound, the Coast Guard is putting out this warning. It's old news, yes? BROOKS: I'd say it's old news. The Coast Guard came out and said that there's -- they have credible information. The FBI says there's no new threats. So you know, again, the FBI being the clearinghouse of this kind of information, this is the third time we've heard about divers in the last month I'd say. And you know, is this the beginning of the turf wars that we're talking about of all the different people that are going to be involved in the Department of Homeland Security in Washington jockeying for a position. That's a -- that's a question that hopefully will be answered soon.

PHILLIPS: That's true. How do you decide that ...

BROOKS: Exactly.

PHILLIPS: ... for your agency" All right Mike Brooks we'll be talking again I'm sure.

BROOKS: All right Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Thanks so much.

BROOKS: Have a good day.

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