What I don't understand is:

There are no agencies within DHS who conduct intelligence gathering or counterintelligence with regards to terrorism there are no agencies with the ability to conduct direct action against terrorist groups in the US or abroad. So how is DHS supposed to accomplish their first mission (Prevent terrorist attacks within the US).

---

_________________________________________________

It's called inter-agency coordination "conduct intelligence gathering or counterintelligence" is still the perview of CIA, NGA, NRO, NSA, and some other 3 letter agencies I'm probably forgetting.

DHS is the oversight, or higher HQ, but not nessarily "the executer of missions"

This entire debate is very similar to the evolution of the Goldwater-Nichols Act that forces DOD towards Joint forces. It was passed in what 1986, and it's taken that long to a) retire out of service an entire generation of officers, within every branch of DOD, who where only focused on their service. b) develop the doctrine that truely encapsuled what what a joint force is and how it fights and condiucts command and control at higher levels and c) allow a newer generation of officers who know joint operations to attain high enough rank to put it into practice and start working on the 3rd and 4th order of effects the refine joint ops to an even higher level.

My opinion: the entire inter-angency cooperation piece with DHS, CIA, FBI, DOD is going to have to go through a goldwater-nichols like evolution. It's going to be ugly but will slowly get better.

Here is their organization structure:
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0515.xml

They have groups that obviously do analysis, but they don't obtain the intelligence themselves like you say.

They get it from everyone else, they are a consumer of intelligence from NGA, DIA/DOD, NSA, CIA, FBI, DOJ and DOE (Energy, not Education).

I've never understood DHS and why it came about to be honest. We got attacked and it happened because the Intelligence Community (IC) is not a collaborative environment, the groups compete. Just take a look at the process for getting a clearance, or passing a clearance from one group to another and you know what the lay of the land is.

To me DHS is all the parts of the FBI that they either weren't doing or were doing poorly. DHS needs the CONUS capabilities of the FBI to accomplish their mission.

The bright side is DHS is a great opportunity to change the performance system in the Federal government (and I mean that sincerely, not sarcasticaly). It's a seniority system, not a meritocracy as it should be.

FBI investigates all federal crimes, not just terrorism. This includes drugs, kidnapping, etc. They are federal law enforcement, not defense. It's an entirely different job. The two agencies complement eachother, they don't cancel eachother out. Also, the CIA isn't allowed to conduct certain types of intelligence gathering against U.S. citizens, while the FBI and local law enforcement are allowed to do certain things.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

That's why I said to put certain duties in DHS where they belong, allowing DHS to do what they say they are going to do and putting the crime fighting forces in the DOJ.

"putting the crime fighting forces in the DOJ."

Who do you think the FBI belongs to?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I guess I should have been more explicit:

Remove all the DHS related activities from the FBI, and fold the rest of the FBI back into the main part of the DOJ's auspice. This would either get rid of the FBI completely, or let it remain in name.

OR the FBI might be run by the Triumvirate or the Literati, can't be certain.

What is the mission of the FBI?

Uh, to keep track of guys like you? ;-)

T.

The FBI is pretty good at what it does. Why do you want to change it? The FBI is completely under the auspices of the DOJ. It works, as many agencies do, in a complementary and supporting manner with the DHS. I'm not sure what you're going for here, except that you think it might be more streamlined if the FBI didn't touch domestic terrorism. I don't see how that helps since the whole idea is to get as many people and agencies involved in this as possible so as to bring the maximum number of resources and expertise to bear.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Seeing as though the FBI was in charge of protecting domestic security when 9/11 happened and is considered to be one of the least cooperative and disjointed intel agencies I'd say that change is drastically needed there. Since DHS is also now in charge of domestic security they have redundant mission scope.

The idea isn't to get as many people in various agencies involved, it's to get the right people involved. You need someone to figure out if redundancy in analysis of all the different intel areas is what is the best operational scenario. So it is a distinct possibility that we have people in DHS, FBI, CIA, NSA, and DIA all analyzing the same issue, separately, and without the same intelligence.

Asking the question about why we have the FBI is part and parcel of addressing the fact that the US Intelligence Community while very successful at what it does is still very disjointed, and sadly competitive to the point of mistrust (borderline paranoia). Now is the time to go beyond the view of "We've had the FBI for the past 97 years, we have to have it in the future". I don't think it is necesarily the best idea to have the FBI be the investigative arm of the DOJ (crimefighting) and preventing domestic terrorism (domestic security). I am not of the view that the division of roles in the IC is based on any thorough assessment of capabilities of agencies, or what is best. Rather, a lot of redundant capabilities that have been developed in a stovepiped "I don't trust them so we have to do it on our own" view.

That'd be the most boring detail ever:

0540 - Wakes up
0541 - Takes shower
0600 - Gets dressed
0615 - Leaves for work
.
.
.
1700 - Leaves work
.
.
.
2200 - Goes to sleep

Those dots, I tell ya' what, they're exciting.

"Seeing as though the FBI was in charge of protecting domestic security when 9/11 happened and is considered to be one of the least cooperative and disjointed intel agencies I'd say that change is drastically needed there"

The FBI isn't an intel agency. The problems with sharing of intel weren't FBI problems, they were legal problems that prevented sharing of info between FBI and local LE agencies, and with the CIA. Certainly those changes needed to be made, and are being made right now.

"Since DHS is also now in charge of domestic security they have redundant mission scope."

DHS is in charge of security, but has no purview over prosecution of anyone. In order to prosecute someone for terrorism, the case has to be handed off to DOJ. Prosecuting terrorists is a different job from preventing attacks on our soil, so their purpose is not redundant. Terrorism is a federal crime, and has to be investigated within the rules that would allow evidence to go to trial. DHS doesn't have the same type of purpose as the FBI in regard to terrorism.

"You need someone to figure out if redundancy in analysis of all the different intel areas is what is the best operational scenario."

It's not about redundancy, it's about brining a wider variety of methods and information sources to bear. The FBI has different strengths from local agencies, from the CIA, from the military, etc.

"Asking the question about why we have the FBI is part and parcel of addressing the fact that the US Intelligence Community while very successful at what it does is still very disjointed"

well, again, the FBI is not solely an intel agency. They are law enforcement and investigative agency which is different, and for which there is a real purpose.

"I don't think it is necesarily the best idea to have the FBI be the investigative arm of the DOJ (crimefighting) and preventing domestic terrorism (domestic security)."

Again, the FBIs mission isn't necessarily to prevent attacks, but to investigate and prosecute persons who are committing federal crimes, to include terrorism. DHS is concerned with preventing the attacks. It is a different mission.

I don't think the Intel community is squared away yet either, but getting rid of this part of the FBI would leave us without an agency capable of prosecuting the people that commit these crimes. I don't think doing away with them is a great idea. I also really don't like the idea of a National Intel Director or the idea that all intel should be under one roof. With intel, I think you need as many opinions as possible to prevent the danger of tailoring intel assessments to what you think the boss wants to hear. Stovepiping and lack of info sharing is a problem to be sure, but there are better ways to go about fixing that.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Just a few quite retorts:

"The FBI isn't an intel agency."
They are part of the IC: http://www.intelligence.gov/1-members_fbi.shtml

What is the IC? http://www.intelligence.gov/1-definition.shtml
"The IC is a federation of executive branch agencies and organizations that work separately and together to conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States."

So yes, they are an intel agency.


"Again, the FBIs mission isn't necessarily to prevent attacks, but to investigate and prosecute persons who are committing federal crimes, to include terrorism."

From the FBI site:
"FBI PRIORITIES
1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack."

and
"The overall mission of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is . . . to protect the United States from foreign intelligence and terrorist activities;"
http://www.intelligence.gov/1-members_fbi.shtml

So yes, they are trying to prevent terrorism.

There might be more points, but those are the one's I wanted to make sure to get to.

I was not saying at all to get rid of the things that the FBI does. What I am saying is that the activities of the FBI might be better located in other IC members, notably the DHS. I think this should be done so that the people who need to be working together can do so in a less complex and more timely fashion.

Members of the IC can and actively do share information/data/intel with each other.

There are numerous changes that need to be made, some are, many aren't. And those that are being made aren't necessarily being done as quickly as we need them to.

Having numerous agencies isn't what allows for analysts to give honest and unbiased opinions/assessments. Having a trusted workplace where honest assessments are encouraged and demanded does. This can be done with multiple stovepiped agencies or more streamlined operations. However the current structure has been more about competition, protecting turf and mistrust.

All the non-positives above aside, there are still hundreds/thousands of heroic people in the IC who make great things happen on a daily basis. What we need to do is get everything out of there way that prevents them from doing their jobs in a more effective and efficient manner.

I'm also not saying to put everyone under one roof, per se. But I'm saying it should be looked at. The current system of operations in the IC is fragmented and disjointed (sometimes intentionally, most often due to historical development lacking thorough evaluation of effectiveness). To use the WH's language "all options should be on the table" for improving our intelligence capabilities.

I have friends in Iraq who say half the time they get the intel they need, half the time they don't. That's not an option to me, so changes have to be made in an intelligent, thoroughly examined, and coordinated manner

"They are part of the IC"

I understand they contribute to the intel community, but they are not an Intel Agency. Also on that list you provided is the Dept of Energy. They aren't an intel agency either, although again, they contribute. The FBI is an investigative agency.

"I have friends in Iraq who say half the time they get the intel they need, half the time they don't. That's not an option to me, so changes have to be made in an intelligent, thoroughly examined, and coordinated manner"

Welcome to the world. Intel is sketchy, sometimes hard to get on time, and frequently faulty. That will be the case with any organizational model, it's not necessarily a symptom of our system in particular.

What I am saying is that the activities of the FBI might be better located in other IC members, notably the DHS. I think this should be done so that the people who need to be working together can do so in a less complex and more timely fashion. "

What I'm saying is that the simpler method of accomplishing this aim has already been implemented bylaws passed regarding info sharing. The FBI has the ability and expertise to investigate and prosecute crimes, which DHS can't and doesn't do.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Here's what the FBI brings that other agencies don't. From the FBI site:

"The FBI is uniquely situated to achieve this counter-terrorism mission. We have both domestic intelligence and law enforcement capabilities. This gives the FBI a full range of options when we pursue investigations, enabling us not only to detect terrorist threats through surveillance, source development, and careful analysis, but to act against those threats through arrest and incarceration. At the same time, the FBI can mobilize quickly and comprehensively to prevent attacks -- thanks to a worldwide network of dedicated Special Agents and their long-standing relationship with federal, state, local, and international partners. The FBI also has nearly a century of experience of working within the boundaries of the Constitution, protecting civil liberties."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I like the "The FBI also has nearly a century of experience of working within the boundaries of the Constitution, protecting civil liberties" part.

I see the "the FBI can mobilize quickly" part to be similar to what the DHS says they do:

"The Department of Homeland Security merges under one roof the capability to anticipate, preempt and deter threats to the homeland whenever possible, and the ability to respond quickly when such threats do materialize."

I don't think MOU's are the end-all solution to our intelligence issues, but they are a good start.

Put your money into IC systems integrators and management consultants, they'll do big business (already are) in this area for years to come.

"The FBI has the ability and expertise to investigate and prosecute crimes, which DHS can't and doesn't do."

DHS havs several law enforcement agencies who investigate and prosecute crimes:

Secret Service, ICE, Coast Guard IG...

---

_________________________________________________

It's my understanding, although I could easily be wrong, that those agencies still have to turn over their investigations to the DoJ for prosecution.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

All federal prosecuters are part of the DOJ, but the investigations are done by the DHS agencies. There are numerous agencies outside of the DOJ who conduct investigations apart from the FBI.

---

_________________________________________________