L.A. Police Chief Looks for Lessons in Attack

Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton said he took the attack on London personally because he worked in that city for about a year before becoming L.A.’s top law enforcement officer in 2002. Bratton was a consultant for Transport for London, the transit agency of the British capital.

Bratton helped create a specialized transit unit for London’s Metropolitan Police and used his experiences in New York, where he was police commissioner from 1994 to 1996, to promote the use of computers to track subway crime.

He regularly rode London’s buses and subway. On a few occasions, he said, he and his wife got lost in the maze of connecting tunnels deep beneath London’s streets.

On Thursday, he answered questions about the explosions.

*

Question: How did you first learn about the attacks in London?

I was called at 3 a.m. by John Miller [L.A.’s counterterrorism chief]. John had been notified by our command center. They were monitoring some of the television reports....

I called the mayor about 3:25, 3:30, briefed him based on information that had been provided to me. I was able to reach the sheriff [Lee Baca] at about five of four, just as he was getting ready to go out for his morning jog.

Q: What lessons can Los Angeles learn from what happened in London?

The lessons learned are the idea that no matter what level of preparedness you have, that unfortunately sometimes in a very public system such as London has, as we have, [this is] one of the prices you pay for easy access and to deal with the large multitudes. They deal with millions a day, as do we.

Q: Do you feel that London was adequately protected, at least as far as a transit system and a city can be?

I certainly do.... They’ve got extensive camera systems. Their personnel are extraordinarily well-trained.

They dealt with 30 years of [Irish Republican Army] terrorism. That’s something we have not dealt with in this country. We’re a recent entrant into the issue of terrorism. They’ve been living with it for almost two generations. So in many respects they’re probably the best-prepared transit system in the world for terrorism acts. And clearly this morning showed that despite all those precautions, there are still vulnerabilities.

Q: What had London done to harden itself as a target?

They had a very conscious public because of the Irish Republican Army activities. They are used to areas being cordoned off. They are very conscious of loose bags on the subway.... So there is much heightened awareness of terrorism based on 30 years of experience, [more] than any city in this country. It is a big head start.

Q: How do we prevent what happened in London from happening here?

There is no way to possibly prevent all potential threats. What you do is a combination of initiatives. First, the development of prevention and intervention systems, which is thoroughly coordinated between the city, county and state, as well as an excellent relationship with the various federal agencies.

And then secondly, something California has always done well because there are so many natural disasters here, is the ability to respond to an incident. There is probably not a city, county in the country that has got those capabilities [to as great a degree], with maybe the exception of Washington.

Q: You said it was a question of when, not if Los Angeles will be attacked?

Within law enforcement, you’ll find that’s a very constant refrain. We fully expect at some point in time it will happen here.

Q: How is the London subway system different from the Los Angeles system?

It is [very] different in many ways. It is huge. It travels throughout the city. It’s one of the oldest in the world. It is very deep. Some lines are as much as 1,500 feet below ground.

The system here in Los Angeles [is] very modern -- a lot of exits, clear lines of sight, designed to withstand earthquakes.... It’s ironic. [The London subway] withstood the bombs of World War II but is very susceptible to terrorist bombs of the 21st century.

Q: So in some ways we’re better set up here to withstand a terrorist attack?

We are better set up in the sense that our system has been built within the last 20 years, was designed with many safety features that are not present in the London system. Although the London system has a lot of security features, it is a system that is over 100 years old. I spent a lot of time on it. It shows its age.

Q: Do we need to improve our transit system security here? Is there anything you would suggest to the mayor?

Not at this stage. We have very good routine security ... the transit system’s 8,000 workers have all been recently trained on terrorism issues, what to watch for, how to respond. They’ve got very good camera systems. They’ve got very good emergency systems -- ventilation, reverse ventilation. We’ll have to take a closer look at what happened in London to get a better sense of the lessons that can be applied here.

Q: You said that this marked a new kind of terrorist attack. Can you expand on that?

The last several efforts in Spain [focused] on inflicting as many civilian casualties in a very basic style of life, traveling to work. It wasn’t aimed at a government building....

Similarly, this effort in London went after a very basic system in that city, not to Big Ben, not to Parliament, not to Buckingham Palace -- symbols like the World Trade Center certainly was, like the USS Cole was, like the Pentagon was.

There seems to be this new movement toward replicating what’s going on in Iraq, inflicting casualties wherever they can. And that’s a very troubling movement.... So if this is a new direction, it’s one we’re going to have to really focus police efforts on understanding and responding to.