Article

2005-06-30 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-06-30 02:03|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I don't know enough about spy services to comment, but I'm not reassured that the recommendations were reviewed by Bush's homeland security adviser. From what I hear, Homeland Services is the biggest, fattest, bureacracy in town - and can't even agree on their own org chart, much less AlQaedas.

Plus, if it were to be really effective, the ACLU would be having epeleptic fits, not issuing a limp. impotent statement like that. That statement was as good as, "looks good to us". And Sandy Berger approves?

Another opportunity wasted.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-30 08:08|| 2005-06-30 08:08|| Front Page Top

#2 We needed a national intelligence czar like another hole in our collective head. If you want things to improve, eliminate the multiple layers of risk-adverse bureaucrats, reduce congressional oversight (meddling and grandstanding) and quit putting these people up in Club Gitmo ( a double tap to the brick).

Posted by Doug De Bono">Doug De Bono 2005-06-30 08:56|| http://www.DouglasDeBono.com]">[http://www.DouglasDeBono.com] 2005-06-30 08:56|| Front Page Top

#3 Actually we do need an intelligence chief.

Iys to ensure that ethe agencies work properly across thier boundaries with each other. FOr instance, the NSA has been famous for making it diffiduclt to ge to its data (protecting sources and methods), and the CIA has a rep for ignoring anything it didn't produce itself. The NGA is new kid on the block so nobody quite knows what to do with them, and the NRO is still so super-classified in so many ways that a good many at other agencncies simply dont know how to go through the hassle in order to task thier assets properly. I could go on and on.

There has to be someone to make the old-line guys work together, instead of turf-wars. This used to be the Directer, Central Intelligence (CIA Director). But the CIA has rotted from the neglect and cronyism of the 90's, and the promotion of "CYA" peace-time types instead of agressive types that we need now. SO its good that the CIA is now subordinate to a cheif of intelligence - and is now simply a peer. But even then, the CIA isnt half of the problem that one other agency is.

The biggest problem is the FBI. It sticks out like a sore thumb in terms of temperament, ability and an almost orthogonal approach. The FBI doesnt belong in the domestic intelligence business - its a crime fighting organization, and should be treated as such - and tossed out of the Intel business, with a new agency formed to do the job right with an emphasis on intelligence first. Think I'm overstating the case? Well here you go - a quote from the article from the Atty General: "Every law enforcement official within the FBI is going to remain under the supervision of the FBI director and, ultimately, the attorney general." Its endemic to their world view to view everything as a law enforcement problem, and the the FBI will never go outside itself, and indeed will treat everythign like its a law enforcement issue - and they will even tell the other agencies to get stuff if they cross onto FBI "turf". Ive seen that attitude before. It gets you people like the one that sent the supposed FBI email Turban Durbin used to call US Military "Nazis". So the FBI has got to go, we need an domestic intelligence agency. Under the command of DHS, much like DIA and NSA fal under the Department of Defense. And the only way to get it is with a reorg.

If anything, I can fault the Bush adminstration with not fixing the FBI problem. Porter Goss was the right guy at CIA. We now need someone like that to shake up the FBI, or else we will need to start a domestic intelligence agency and pull that out of the FBI.

Aside from that one flaw

Posted by OldSpook 2005-06-30 10:01|| 2005-06-30 10:01|| Front Page Top

#4 A new domestic intelligence unit makes much more sense than a new FBI head. Leave the FBI to hunting kidnappers. The real question is how to keep any domestic intelligence unit from degenerating into a law enforcement unit, as domestic action will be required to be legal. I think this unit should be part of Homeland Security and not DOJ.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-06-30 10:08|| 2005-06-30 10:08|| Front Page Top

#5 and we all know how well the FBI has been in rooting the mob out of our major cities and in stopping drugs from being sold on our streets. But not to worry, they have them all under survellience. They are watching.

And sooner or later, they will take down a kingpin. Because we all know how effective of a war tactic it is to watch as the bad guys build their army, let it grow, and then kill a general or maybe even two.

Posted by 2b 2005-06-30 10:21|| 2005-06-30 10:21|| Front Page Top

#6 Perhaps copy from the British model. I believe that MI has no police or prosecutorial powers, so concentrates on actual counterintelligence, then lets the cops know when they've got someone who needs arresting.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong about that. It sounds like a good idea, though, as it prevents mission drift.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-06-30 10:22|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-06-30 10:22|| Front Page Top

#7 oldspook your spot on. If you used good old intel to set up and execute an ambush killing the terrorists before they could fire a shot, some high ranker in the FBI would accuse you of extrajudicial killings. they have forgotten we are at war and need to back out of it.

Posted by 49 pan 2005-06-30 20:03|| 2005-06-30 20:03|| Front Page Top

#8 I wholeheartedly agree about a new intelligence agency with a new direction. Law enforcement in the US is a commission business. I make GS13 or Sergeant or Commander by making cases, not helping others make theirs. Oh, I won't let you get killed, but I won't share. If we turned that on it's head, and created an agency that rewarded sharing informaiton and connecting the dots from disparate sources, and handing it to someone to do the arrests or extreme actions needed, the whole system would work soooo much better. Just this week I participated in a rug dance as a parent agency wondered what it's legacy parts knew and when they knew them, and then tried to fill in the blanks from another agency, a process akin to pulling teeth.
We know almost all we need to know, we just don't know we know becasue we don't share between agencies, federal, state and local.

Posted by Just About Enough!">Just About Enough! 2005-06-30 23:30|| 2005-06-30 23:30|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:39 JosephMendiola
23:36 Phinerong Pheregum9142
23:33 Anonymoose
23:30 Just About Enough!
23:22 JosephMendiola
23:19 Frank G
23:15 Just About Enough!
23:13 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 Phil Fraering
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:10 JosephMendiola
23:07 JosephMendiola
23:04 BA
22:47 Dave D.
22:44 BA
22:43 Wholush Shoger9230
22:40 Frank G
22:34 Barbara Skolaut
22:23 phil_b
22:19 xbalanke
22:08 Super Hose
22:07 Dave D.
21:59 SR-71