http:\/\/twitter.com\/lensipes<\/a>.<\/p>\n[Audio Begins]<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 From the nation\u2019s capital, this is DC Public Safety. I\u2019m your host, Leonard Sipes. We have a really interesting program for you today, ladies and gentlemen\u2014intelligence, intelligence sharing, what\u2019s happened within the criminal justice system, the larger arena of national and local and state intelligence sharing, the lessons we\u2019ve learned since 911, the lessons we\u2019ve learned in terms of an exchange of information between law enforcement, corrections, parole and probation, and the national intelligence apparatus. We have at our microphones, back again, Doctor William Sondervan. Doctor Sondervan, or Bill Sondervan, is the executive director for Public Safety Outreach, University of Maryland University College. They have an astounding 94,000 students there at the University of Maryland University College. And also joining him at our microphones today is his colleague Peter Oleson. Peter is an associate professor of intelligence studies. Let me give you a little bit of background about Peter. Senior intelligence policy advisor to the Secretary of Defense, Assistant Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, he was a CEO for his own consulting firm for quite some time. So we have a true expert to talk to us about this whole issue of intelligence and intelligence sharing within the criminal justice system, in the larger society. And with that introduction, Bill and Peter, welcome to DC Public Safety.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Thanks, Len.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Happy to be here.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Alright Bill, let me give you the first go round. Just set up University of Maryland University College. You have students throughout the world. 94,000, that\u2019s quite a few people.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Yes, actually we do. UMUC is one of the 11 universities in the University of Maryland system, and we have classes all through Maryland. We do most of the on-line learning for the university system, and we also have an agent in a European division. We have people on the ground teaching in about 26 different countries, to include Iraq and Afghanistan.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 That\u2019s amazing. Peter, you\u2019re an associate professor there at UMUC, so you have this mix of people that you and your other professors teach in terms of intelligence studies. Give me this larger sense. We were discussing before the show that the listeners to this program may be a bit confused in terms of intelligence studies. What we have is the CIA, Central Intelligence Agency. We have the FBI, we have lots of organizations throughout the country at the federal level who gather intelligence information. But we\u2019re principally, today, talking about criminal justice system, how agencies share information with each other. My agency, the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency, we share information all the time regarding high risk offenders, regarding those offenders who pose an obvious risk to public safety. We share that information with the metropolitan police department, we share that information with the FBI, we share that information with the Secret Service, we share that information with the U.S. Park Police and other law enforcement agencies. So the bottom line in all of this, I\u2019m presuming, is the public safety; despaired agencies getting together and sharing information to protect public safety. That, to me, is the bottom line. Am I correct?<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Oh, I think very much so. I mean, the whole investment in intelligence in the United States really was an outgrowth of the surprise at Pearl Harbor, and you know, the conviction that we should never let that happen again. And yet, of course, in 911, it did. There are really many communities when you think about intelligence. You mentioned CIA and the FBI, both of which are probably the best known for the simple reason that that\u2019s what you see on TV and in the popular novels. But I like to think about their being indeed four different communities that deal with intelligence, and certainly the national intelligence community is one of them that comprises those that you mentioned, as well as the intelligence activities within the Department of Defense and the military services, and several other department levels of the federal government. The second community I\u2019d really think about is the Homeland Security Community, which of course is headed by the Department of Homeland Security, and which uses intelligence, of course, for very specific reasons of keeping not only the United States safe, but our citizens overseas and our allies. The third is really the law enforcement community, which has traditionally used intelligence in limited senses to drive intelligence-led policing, but which of course has expanded greatly since 911, when we have learned that we really need to deal international terrorists, and also with international criminal organizations that will deal in drug trafficking and money laundering and many other illicit activities. But what a lot of people, I think, don\u2019t recognize is that intelligence also is used very extensively in the private sector in large corporations, in international corporations to understand their environment, to understand their market, to understand their competitors; and in a defensive sense, to protect their own intellectual property and products from espionage by others. The Chinese seem to be particularly adept at this at present.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Mm-hm.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 And also against counterfeiters.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Mm-hm.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Yeah, I\u2019ve worked with a large international pharmaceutical firm that uses intelligence to identify who is counterfeiting their products so that they can go after them with law enforcement; so that when you open a bottle of whatever is their medicine, you can be guaranteed that it\u2019s not gonna poison you.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 And we go on for the next half hour in terms of the IT community and Apple computer and all the rest \u2013<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Absolutely.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 – that are very jealously guarding their secrets and making sure that their products that are released without their competitors knowing about them.\u00a0 Bill, let me go back to you for a second. One of the things that you mentioned in prior conversations with this sense of sharing intelligence within the correctional community, you were the Commissioner of Corrections for the \u2013 the Division of Correction \u2013 for the Maryland Division of Correction, part of the Maryland Department of Public Safety. Both of us worked there in terms of full disclosure, and Bill, you, in terms of running the prison system, you discovered a lack of intelligence sharing and sought to rectify that with both federal and local law enforcement agencies for a wide variety of reasons.\u2014Number one, to keep your prisons as safe as humanly possible; number two, to share that information with law enforcement and community corrections, to be sure that those people coming out of prison, who again posed a clear and present risk to public safety, that that information was shared and that the law enforcement and parole and probation community knew how to keep an eye on that person.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Exactly right, Len. You know, I retired from the military police in the Army, and the last job I was on the joint staff when General Powell was the chairman. And you know, we share a lot of information, a lot of intelligence all the time. And then there was a point that initially, as Assistant Commissioner for Corrections, in charge of security operations, and I came to Maryland, and it just really dawned me, it just hit me right between the eyes, that we had so much going on in these prisons. We had 27 prisons with 24,000 convicted felons, and they were doing all sorts of things, but we all worked in stovepipes.\u00a0 The prisons didn\u2019t talk to each other. The prisons didn\u2019t talk to parole and probation. We didn\u2019t talk to the jails, we didn\u2019t talk to the local police, we didn\u2019t talk to the federal authorities, and it was all in stovepipe. All the information that we gathered was very informal and it was through informants and snitches and things that the warden would pick up. And there were several big incidents that happened that just really embarrassed me as being responsible for security, and I go into a lot of them. But one of them specifically, I had one of the federal agencies came to see me, and they closed the door, and they said, \u201cDid you realize that one of your contract chaplains happened to be an imam who was also a co-conspirator in blowing up the World Trade Center the first time around, is working in your prison as a chaplain, and he\u2019s recruiting disaffected inmates to be terrorists.\u201d I just about fell out of my chair! We confirmed that, and that was going on along with several other things; and we got to the point where we decided we had to do something about it. So we partnered up with the high intensity drug trafficking area, the Washington-Baltimore area, and they helped us with funding. The whole idea was to collect the intelligence, to analyze it, and disseminate it the best we could. So they gave us money, we hired two former NSA intelligence analysts to help us get going. I started a security threat group office, I appointed a captain, hired a civilian. We hired two retired civilians from the National Security Agency to help us, and we appointed a lieutenant in every prison. We started this whole process of finding out what was going on in prisons, finding ways to deal with it, taking a look at it and disseminating to others. So we were able to do a lot of really important things. Just a couple of examples, but one of the things we did was we were able to take back the inmate phone system, which goes out on a bid to the Department of Budget and Management.\u00a0 We were able then to record inmate phone calls, and once you record inmate phone calls, the software exists to be able to go in and use it for intelligence purposes, to capture whatever you wanted to do. So we started doing those things, and from there, it all kind of grew, and we all started working together. We went out and we talked to police departments, we talked to the other prisons, we talked to the jail administrators, and we started partnering with everybody. We started getting onto intelligence committees. We started finding ways to work with each other, and it was really a start, and it\u2019s really grown since then. One of the things we also did is we were able to validate gangs in the Maryland prison system. Just as an example, what we would do is every month we would put together a list of validated gang members who were going home to particular communities, and we would share that with parole and probation, and with the local police.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 You know, the bottom line in all of this is because an individual hearing this program, who is not part of the criminal justice community, may say to themselves, \u201cOh, wait a minute, this sounds very oppressive. This sounds almost scary.\u201d We are talking about, and I think we need to constantly bring the program back to this focus, we are talking solely about individuals who are engaging in acts while in prison \u2013 still engaging in acts, organized crime, still ordering homicides, still ordering murders, still ordering people to be victims of violent crime while in prison. And at the same time, through that intelligence apparatus, we knew that once they were released, we could no longer legally hold them when they went back into the community. We know through intelligence that they were gonna go straight back to being involved in very violent crimes, to the point where we had people followed through the law\u00a0 enforcement community. So I think the focus on the whole program has to be in terms of the criminal justice or the corrections community, to remind everybody, again, we\u2019re talking about some bad actors. We\u2019re not talking about everybody within the prison system. We\u2019re talking about people who pose a clear and present danger to our either national security or to our local security, correct?<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Absolutely, Len. And –<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 And I would add a point, Len, if I could [OVERLAY]<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Yeah, Peter, please.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 – Bill, is that, you know, for those who might think along the lines of civil libertarians, that you know, once a person has been convicted and put in prison, he does not have the same rights as you and I would, as law abiding citizens in our homes. Being monitored by the appropriate authorities is both legal and most appropriate, as I think you\u2019ve pointed out.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 And something we\u2019re obligated to do.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Yes.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 To, once again, protect public safety.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Absolutely.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Some of the issues that also came out of that, is, you know, once I retired after serving 10 years in corrections and being a Commissioner of Correction, I came to University of Maryland University College, and was asked to put together a state of the art criminal justice program for practitioners. So the way we did that is we established an advisory board with very, very senior people in the community. And we took a hard look at our curriculum, and one of the things that everybody said unanimously is that we don\u2019t have an intelligence component for criminal justice. We really need to have that. We need to get out of stovepipes. We need to trust each other, we need to work with each other, and we have to start collecting, analyzing and sharing intelligence if we\u2019re gonna win and the bad guys are gonna lose. So that\u2019s kind of \u2013 that\u2019s what we did. And as a result of that, we put together a certificate program in our undergraduate criminal justice program that focuses on the art and science of doing intelligence. And by going through that process, that\u2019s where I met Peter Oleson. My background is police and corrections, and I\u2019m not really an intelligence person, except for being a consumer of intelligence while I was in the military. I had the good fortune of meeting Peter Oleson through mutual friends, and Peter then came on board, and he became the advisor of UMUC in terms of intelligence, and he\u2019s been a great help to us in not only perfecting that undergraduate certificate in intelligence, but also a master\u2019s program in intelligence management.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Well, I\u2019m sitting here in what is affectionately known by those of us who work here, ground zero. I\u2019m sitting one block away from Pennsylvania Avenue, I can see the Washington monument, I can see the Supreme Court, can\u2019t see the Whitehouse. The Congress is hidden by a building in front of me, but this is \u2013 you know, we within the Washington community, are extraordinarily grateful of everything the intelligence community does, because we know that every day, every single day when we come into downtown Washington DC\u2014and I would imagine New Yorkers feel that way, I would imagine people through the country feel this way\u2014is that we are extraordinarily grateful to the intelligence community in terms of protecting us. And that larger intelligence community extends to parole and probation agents, extends to police officers, extends to middle management. It extends to the national agencies, and there are many. I mean, if it wasn\u2019t for the intelligence community, our lives would be at risk.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Oh, absolutely, and I think what he public doesn’t know, of course, is the number of times when intelligence has in fact frustrated a plot that could have resulted in significant casualties or damage to Americans. You know, the challenge of course is that you have to be on top of it all the top, and you know, a terrorist only has to be successful once. You know, that is a very high standard. It\u2019s one of the issues we always have in intelligence, you know, when you\u2019re accused of an intelligence failure, that sometimes people apply an impossible standard to what\u2019s success and what\u2019s failure.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 We\u2019re halfway through the \u2013 oh, I\u2019m sorry, Peter, let me just cut you off for a second.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Sure.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 We\u2019re halfway through the program, and let me re-introduce the both of you, and hold that thought for a second. Doctor William Sondervan, Executive Direction of Public Safety Outreach, University of Maryland University College. Peter Oleson, associate professor of intelligence studies, a man with an extraordinary, extraordinary background, probably the most senior intelligence person I\u2019ll get to talk to in my career. I want to thank you both for being on the program. Both can be reached at www.umuc.edu; www.umuc.edu.\u00a0 I\u2019m sorry, Peter, I interrupted you. Go ahead with your thought please.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Well, I was talking about how do you judge success.\u00a0 I think one of the important things for anybody thinking about intelligence, is to realize that intelligence is prospective. It\u2019s looking at what might happen in the future, and trying to give decision makers the information they need to take the appropriate action. You know, it\u2019s not an investigative ex post facto activity.\u00a0 And so you\u2019re never always fully knowledgeable of what might happen. As a matter of fact, in intelligence analysis, I always like to use the analogy with students that it\u2019s like putting together a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle –<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Mm-hm.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 – only somebody tore the picture off the cover of the box, so you don\u2019t really\u00a0\u00a0 know what the picture\u2019s supposed to look like. And when you open up the box, you find that anywhere from 30 to 60 percent of the pieces are missing; and yet your job is to describe in detail what is that picture.\u00a0 That\u2019s the challenge that intelligence faces.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 And Bill, that same intelligence package comes down all the way to the local level in terms of people in prison who we know. I mean, we had, when I was working for the Maryland Department of Public Safety while you were there, there was all sorts of instants, all sorts of times where we had individuals followed as soon as the person was released from the gate because we knew, we had hard, strong intelligence that person was headed straight towards a series of violent crimes in terms of an associate or in compliance or \u2013 he had accomplices; that as a group, they were gonna go out and commit violent crime. So it\u2019s just not keeping a dirty bomb from going off on Pennsylvania Avenue, it\u2019s keeping individuals who are avowed violent criminals from going out and hurting other human beings.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Well, it\u2019s even deeper than that, Len. It\u2019s not only when they leave, when they go on the outside, it\u2019s also like you alluded to earlier, what they\u2019re doing while they\u2019re still in prison. They can commit crimes from behind bars, and I think a lot of people in the police field think that when an inmate gets locked and he goes behind the walls of the prison, he automatically puts on a halo and he becomes a good doobie. But that\u2019s not the case at all. What we uncovered is that people were running drug empires, they were putting hits on people, they were intimidating people, they were defrauding people, and it goes on and on. So a big piece of that as a corrections professional–and that\u2019s really my expertise–is to prevent that from happening while they\u2019re in there; and in being able to share the intelligence we have with the parole and probation people, with the police people in the community, so that they can prevent the violent acts when they go out.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 And I just want to be, again, re-emphasizing certain points, that what we\u2019re talking about is not all prisoners. We\u2019re not talking about 50 percent of prisoners. We\u2019re talking about a sub-set that we know are engaged in acts that are obviously dangerous to public safety.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 That\u2019s true. A lot of the inmates don\u2019t do that, but it\u2019s a small percentage of them. But that small percentage can cause a lot of damage.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Well, one of the interesting things about the custodial setting, the prison setting is that the best sources of information we have are fellow inmates, because they don\u2019t want the problems. They don\u2019t want any trouble. They don\u2019t want violence erupting, nor do they want violence erupting in their own home communities. The best source of information we have are the inmates themselves, because they see the intelligence sharing process as something that keeps them safe, and something that keeps their community safe.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 You\u2019re absolutely right. The majority of inmates just want to do their time. They want to be safe themselves. They want their families to be safe, and they just want to do their time, be productive. A lot of them want to work, they want to go to school. So quite frankly, a lot of the inmates want to be informants, and a lot of inmates tell prison officials what\u2019s going on, and it\u2019s really a good source of intelligence to put together that piece of the puzzle that Peter was talking about. You know, you have to gather intelligence from a variety of different sources, and try to make it all fit, and try to get a good picture of what\u2019s really happening.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Peter, now, you know, there are so many intelligence related agencies that we have in this country \u2013<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Mm-hm.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 – ranging anywhere from probably a dozen federal agencies\u2014I think I read at one \u2013<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 17 actually.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 17 federal agencies, all the way to the New York City police department that\u2019s sending their own people overseas to gather intelligence. And they\u2019ve been able to stop crimes, acts of terrorism from happening in New York because of that. So it\u2019s a huge \u2013<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson: Indeed.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 – apparatus, and the criticism before 911 is that we weren\u2019t sharing information. Are we now sharing information?<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Well, I mean before 911, there were actually legal restrictions in sharing information–that you weren\u2019t allowed to do it. And part of that grew out of the investigations of the intelligence community in the 1970s with the Church and Pike Committees, the subsequent executive orders and laws. And nobody in the intelligence business wanted to be criticized for doing things wrong, so, you know, they were overly conservative, in my view. Much of that has changed. The prohibitions and sharing certain kinds of information, such as grand jury information with intelligence people, has been swept away with subsequent laws. The imperative to share is being emphasized very much by senior managers. The current Director of National Intelligence, Jim Clapper, his major theme for managing the federal intelligence community is related to integration, which really means sharing and getting the information that somebody needs to them, either for analytical purposes or for making some kind of executive decision. And I think he has pushed that ahead rather well and rather dramatically. Jim\u2019s a strong manager. I\u2019ve known him many, many years. The importance about sharing really has two things, and in my view, if you spent a lot of time and effort collecting intelligence and you don\u2019t use it, you frankly wasted that time and energy.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Mm-hm.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 And worse yet, you may be sitting on something that somebody else really needs. The ex post facto investigations that we have had, of 911, even back of Pearl Harbor, we had the information oftentimes that we needed, but we just didn\u2019t put it together properly; and it didn\u2019t get into the right hands.\u00a0 That was truly the case at Pearl Harbor because neither General Short nor Admiral Kimmel, who were the commanders out there at the time, were privy to the fact that we were reading Japanese diplomatic communications, and that clearly indicated that hostilities were\u2026<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 About to break out. Yes, yes, yes.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 And so they were caught unprepared, and pilloried for it, and I think somewhat unjustifiably.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Yeah, they turned out to be scapegoats, yes.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 But, you know, this is not a unique problem. It\u2019s happened many times. In the intelligence business, you also \u2013 you always have a conundrum between the secrecy of your source and your desire to protect that source \u2013<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Mm-hm.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 – whether that be an individual or a technical means that can easily be thwarted, and sharing the information. And frankly, the risk of revelation or leak goes up with the amount of sharing you do. You know, that\u2019s the inevitable problem you have, and how you balance those takes decisions every day by a lot of people.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Well, the same thing, we have the same problem here, that a community supervision officer\u2014what is commonly known as a parole and probation agent in the rest of the country\u2014will gain information and it\u2019ll be that a person is about to engage in a series of violent crimes, part of a gang retribution, share that information with MPD, at the same time having to protect their source. So, all of us at all levels of the criminal justice system suffer through that sort of ethical decision in terms of protecting the source while sharing the information.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Absolutely. There\u2019s an interesting observation I would make also, and that is sort of how intelligence and law enforcement activities are merging since 911. I mean, it used to be in the Cold War that intelligence focused on foreign armies and foreign countries, but since the terrorist attacks, and with the growth of international criminal organizations, intelligence is increasingly focused on what the intelligence community calls sub-national groups. You know, you can say it\u2019s individuals or small groups of individuals, which has always been the focus of law enforcement. And what you\u2019re seeing in the case of New York City, as you pointed out, is an organization that is a police organization using intelligence, I think, quite effectively. And I might comment that Ray Kelly\u2019s positioning of New York City police officers overseas, brings the expertise of a cop to the scene of foreign terrorist incidents, which really gives us insight and better analysis than you\u2019re gonna get say from a CIA officer who\u2019s stationed in the embassy, who is not a trained investigator. I mean, his purpose is entirely different. And so I think that that has benefitted not only New York, but because New York does share information, it\u2019s benefitted all of us.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 We have three minutes left in the program. Either one of you can address this question. To me, the intelligence sharing apparatus is absolutely necessary to protect me, to protect our communities, to protect our children, to protect our welfare, to protect our jobs. It\u2019s absolutely critical, absolutely necessary. The information has to be shared, but yet many within the larger American community are a little frightened and a bit overwhelmed by the intelligence gathering and sharing process. They see it as a bit Orwellian. They see it as overbearing, that there\u2019s a fine line to be walked in terms of protecting the public and being overly zealous in terms of the collection of information. There are endless examples of criminal justice organizations and intelligence communities who did go overboard, who did collect the wrong intelligence from the wrong people at the wrong time. So how do you address that?<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Well, Len, that\u2019s why oversight by independent groups is absolutely essential, whether it be from the intelligence committees in Congress or whether it be things like the Intelligence Oversight Board in the Whitehouse, or shall I say, an independent group at a local community level that has all the appropriate access and who can always be a check and balance. I mean, that\u2019s the basic nature of our government is checks and balances, and when you deal with civil liberties, checks and balances are critically important.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 But I do want to emphasize in the final minutes, is that the individual intelligence officers, the individual police officers, the individual parole and probation agents also understand their constitutional duties in terms of the privacy of individuals and when it\u2019s necessary to gather information to protect public safety. They understand that as well, correct?<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 They are basically well trained but, you know, you can face ethical questions every day. This is not a simple world. It\u2019s a very complex one, and the fact that we\u2019ve done so well at the individual level, I think, is a remarkable testament to the American law enforcement community and the intelligence officers who support them.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Okay, Bill, we got about 30 seconds left. Go ahead and wrap up.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Len, I just wanted to add that UMUC, we\u2019ve taken on the mission to prepare people to go into a multitude of agencies, all the criminal justice agencies, and be intelligence specialists and analysts. And part of the program, we\u2019ve incorporated the legal and ethical issues involved in intelligence, besides the theory into practice. So our whole goal is to produce graduates that can go out in the field and be advisors to leaders of agencies and help them do these things, and do them properly.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 Everybody pretty much understand the limitations and understand the roles. I think that\u2019s what you\u2019re trying to say. I mean \u2013<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Exactly.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 And that\u2019s what everybody who\u2019s listening to this radio show needs to understand, that it\u2019s just not Congressional oversight. The individual officers pretty much know where they can go and where they can\u2019t, but they gotta go where they gotta go to protect public safety.<\/p>\n
Dr. William Sondervan:\u00a0 Exactly.<\/p>\n
Peter Oleson:\u00a0 Absolutely.<\/p>\n
Len Sipes:\u00a0 All right, ladies and gentlemen, I really want to thank you for listening today. Our guests have been Doctor William Sondervan, the Executive Director for Public Safety Outreach, University of Maryland University College, www.umuc.edu.\u00a0 94,000 students, that\u2019s a huge university. Joining him today is Peter Oleson, associate professor for intelligence studies; again, a person with an extraordinary background, and to Peter, you can look at the web site. Once again, it\u2019s the same for the University of Maryland University College, www.umuc.edu. Ladies and gentlemen, this is DC Public Safety. We thank you for your interest and calls and letters, and please have yourselves a very, very pleasant day.<\/p>\n
[Audio Ends]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
See http:\/\/media.csosa.gov for our television shows, blog and transcripts. Radio Program available at http:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/audio\/2011\/09\/intelligence-and-information-sharing-in-the-criminal-justice-system-umuc-dc-public-safety\/ We welcome your comments or suggestions at leonard.sipes@csosa.gov or at Twitter at http:\/\/twitter.com\/lensipes. [Audio Begins] Len Sipes:\u00a0 From the nation\u2019s capital, this is DC Public Safety. I\u2019m your host, Leonard Sipes. We have a really interesting program for you today, ladies […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,54,15,41,31,42],"tags":[95,96,97,98],"class_list":["post-717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-audiopodcast","category-corrections-prisons","category-interviewswithpolicymakers","category-police","category-probation","category-violence-reduction","tag-information-sharing","tag-intelligence","tag-umuc","tag-university-of-maryland","entry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pBoKk-bz","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=717"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/717\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":719,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/717\/revisions\/719"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/media.csosa.gov\/podcast\/transcripts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}