Pubdate: Mon, 10 Dec 2001
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Feedback: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/letters/letted/
Address: 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60611-4066
Contact:  2001 Chicago Tribune Company
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Author: Naftali Bendavid

OVERHAUL LIKELY TO SHRINK FBI DRUG WAR ROLE

Carrying Burden Worries Local Law Enforcement

WASHINGTON -- As the FBI, the nation's premier crime-fighting force, 
undergoes a historic reorientation from crime-solving to the war on 
terrorism, many are asking what will happen to the previous great national 
mission: the war on drugs.

Nearly one-quarter of the FBI's $3.4 billion budget, and thousands of its 
agents, is dedicated to helping fight drug trafficking. FBI Director Robert 
Mueller is scheduled to announce a complete overhaul of the bureau early 
next year, and most observers say it is likely to include a far smaller 
role for FBI agents in fighting drugs. Mueller announced a restructuring of 
bureau management last week.

That means the burden will fall on state and local police departments, 
which are already overtaxed, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, which 
would need an infusion of dollars to take up the slack.

"I don't know what they are going to do, but they are going to have to 
articulate something," said Nicholas Gess, a former Clinton administration 
Justice Department official. "Governors and mayors will not let them get 
away with just transferring it to them. When the crime rate goes up, it's 
the mayor who gets voted out."

Mueller has acknowledged that he cannot simply declare the FBI is no longer 
in the drug-fighting business because its 11,000 agents are needed to fight 
terrorism.

"I'm sensitive to the fact that when you don't do something, you have to 
fill that gap," Mueller said last week. "Whenever we make a decision as to 
taking something away from one area, we have to know who will fill the 
void, and whether they are capable and willing to fill the void."

But it is unclear how the gap will be filled, not only regarding drug 
crimes but other investigations as well. From bank robbery to gun offenses 
to pornography, police who depend heavily on the bureau to help with 
challenging crimes worry about what will happen when the FBI announces its 
reorganization.

"I'm concerned about bank robbery," said Bill Berger, North Miami Beach 
police chief. "It's not a local crime. It tends to be individuals who go 
from state to state and may have a political agenda. Unfortunately, police 
departments don't communicate that well among each other. That is the one 
crime that concerns me."

Money Question Rises Again

Lawmakers may find themselves facing a difficult decision: Whether to spend 
much more money on law enforcement, despite the sputtering economy and the 
re-emergence of budget deficits, or to allow investigation of some crimes 
to fall by the wayside.

"The obvious response from the FBI is, 'Take your pick. Do you want us to 
increase the size of our force to fight terrorism, or will you run us 
ragged with everything you can dream up? And if you pick the second, we 
need money,'" said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.

Lee Colwell, a former associate director of the FBI, agreed.

"I don't see any clear, clean choices," he said. "It's a reordering of 
priorities based on the threat now. It's not an easy policy issue, and 
there are no easy choices. But I don't think anyone would dispute that the 
threat of terrorism has provided a mandate to do something."

Last week Mueller announced Phase 1 of the bureau's reorganization, one 
that dealt mostly with changes at headquarters. Phase 2, expected early 
next year, is likely to prove far more controversial.

The shift Mueller is contemplating is a historic one. The FBI was not 
always in the business of drug investigations; its original mission was 
complex, interstate crimes that would overwhelm city police forces--Mafia 
racketeering, city hall corruption, white-collar fraud.

But when President Ronald Reagan launched his war on drugs 20 years ago, he 
conscripted the FBI into the crusade, over the protest of many agents. And 
Congress for two decades has sought to prove its tough-on- crime 
credentials by making more and more offenses into federal crimes and 
assigning them to the FBI--carjacking and gun crimes for example.

In essence, Mueller's reorganization not only will be an overhaul of his 
agency, but it will amount to a realignment of American law enforcement. 
After two decades of trying to persuade federal agents to handle local 
crimes and work with city police, the FBI suddenly will be pulling back.

Justice Department leaders have not specified which investigations the FBI 
will abandon. But clearly they will be related to offenses that do not 
require the bureau's sophistication and national reach.

"The department will not be all things to all people," Atty. Gen. John 
Ashcroft told his staff last month. "We cannot do everything we once did, 
because lives now depend on us doing a few things very well. We must strive 
to maximize our potential even as we recognize our limitations."

While some are worried, others welcome this change, saying it never made 
sense for the FBI to handle local crimes.

"In terms of violent crime, the federal role was always improper," said 
Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.

"If the FBI is not involved, I don't see that this is in any way going to 
be catastrophic to the investigations."

Some police chiefs, meanwhile, insist they have improved their ability to 
handle drug cases. Others say it is redundant for the DEA and FBI to target 
drugs.

"I in fact recommended to Director Mueller that the FBI get out of the drug 
business," said Robert Olson, police chief of Minneapolis.

In any case the FBI would not drop all drug cases. Its agents likely would 
step in on complex cases involving organized crime, powerful gangs or 
international cartels.

But it appears inescapable that the FBI will pull important resources out 
of what was until Sept. 11 the nation's top law-enforcement priority.

The reorientation presents other dangers as well. Several agents warned 
that as the FBI pulls out of local cases, it risks damaging a federal-local 
partnership that has been nurtured over the years.

"There is a law-enforcement fabric that has been woven over a long period 
of time of how we work with state and local offices," said Nancy Savage, an 
FBI agent in Eugene, Ore., who heads the FBI Agents Association. "It's 
woven based on mutual assistance. We don't want it to be broken. We would 
be less effective in every respect, including terrorism."

An Important Link

Even the actions that virtually everyone agrees the FBI must take, such as 
pulling out of investigating some simpler crimes, will not be easy.

"Even when it comes to violent crime, the FBI performs a unique function 
because they have nationwide jurisdiction," said Gess, a senior consultant 
with Bingham Consulting Group. "It's all very well and good to say a police 
officer in New York can call a police officer in Los Angeles, but who do 
you call? There is no good system."

Some fear that other priorities inevitably will be lost. Even if the FBI 
keeps its mandate to investigate such complex matters such as antitrust 
cases, environmental offenses and civil rights violations, these crimes may 
not get the attention they deserve.

"Some will be tempted to use this as an excuse to get the FBI out of those 
things that from a political perspective they don't want to have examined, 
such as civil rights and environmental matters," said Eric Holder, the No. 
2 official in the Clinton Justice Department. "I would hope that would not 
happen."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth