Bob Barr

Terrorist speed traps?

December 28, 2003
The Washington Times

"Osama Bin Laden Caught Driving with Busted Taillight in Skokie, Illinois!"

No, this isn't a real newspaper headline. Nor is it one you're likely to see any time soon, though some in our nation's capital apparently think otherwise.

Since the mid 1990s, the federal government has been cutting checks to local police departments at a furious pace. With the advent of Homeland Security, the gravy train has gotten massively larger, even as oversight of how the funds are spent has grown proportionately smaller.

This moved into high gear under Clinton with the Justice Department-operated Community Oriented Policing Services, known by its clever acronym "COPS." Basically, COPS gives many “small” grants to practically any police department in the U.S. that wants them. The program has proven wildly popular among police chiefs and congressmen.

Though congressmen play virtually no role in securing federal police grants – they're doled out on a merit system – the nice folks at federal agencies always send advance notice of who is getting grants. So, Members of Congress get to announce federal funds going to their districts, which never hurts re-election efforts. Perhaps this is why the basic concept of COPS grants has been extended to the war on terrorism, funded through such mechanisms as the Homeland Security Overtime Program, which pays for local cops to work more hours.

If members of Congress like numerous small federal law enforcement grants, police chiefs and local officials adore them. Insofar as the funds are distributed in small chunks to thousands of places (the list of grants to Georgia under the COPS program alone is 93 pages long), there is virtually no meaningful oversight of how the grants are spent.

If local officials and police administrators are honest and competent, they spend the money to buy new communications equipment or hire more officers. If they are less so, then they get a federally-supported slush fund to spend however they want. In a previous Judiciary Committee hearing, some rather suspect purposes included, "speed traps, coral reef patrols, and cutting down cornstalks," as well as "a gambling excursion to a dog track, golf fees, and trips to Florida and Arizona." Although one might expect to find O.J. Simpson on a golf course, Osama bin Laden’s pastimes normally wouldn’t include links.

Perhaps federal officials responsible for homeland security honestly believe speed traps will help catch terrorists. Perhaps they just know that Congress loves these kinds of programs. In reality, both political expediency and misguided policy concerns explain Washington's fascination with large numbers of “small” law enforcement grants.

From a policy standpoint, however, there are several reasons to reconsider this approach, particularly as it pertains to homeland security. First, there are legitimate questions as to whether more speed traps, newer patrol cars, or school resource officers really make us any safer from terrorism. Focusing on improving our human intelligence structure, locking down our ports of entry and borders, and penetrating terrorist cells would seem to be much more effective solutions to the problem than speed traps and hall monitors.

Secondly, America ultimately has to decide whether using federal funds to increase the police presence beyond what the local tax and political base can support, has begun seriously to infringe on the freedoms we are trying to protect. After all, pre-war Iraq certainly had an effective police presence, and it probably experienced less terrorism as a result. But there was clearly a price to be paid.

During the Cold War, President Eisenhower rightly resisted permanently militarizing American society – as many urged – in order to defeat the Soviet Union. As we now face the challenge of securing our homeland against terrorists at home and abroad, we should just as seriously resist building a police state incrementally – dollar by dollar, grant by grant, news release by news release.