Break Up the FBI... [Archive]

JJC

08-09-2007, 09:11 PM

The agency is too large and bureaucratic to effectively fight terrorism.
By John Yoo, JOHN YOO is a former Justice Department official, a law professor at UC Berkeley and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of "War by Other Means."
March 21, 2007

MORE THAN five years after 9/11, the United States still has a long way to go to create an effective and efficient antiterrorism agency.

The FBI's latest missteps are being aired this week in congressional hearings in which the Justice Department's inspector general has vividly described the failings of the FBI process for issuing national security letters. According to his estimates, the FBI improperly issued thousands of requests — which don't require judicial approval — for telephone logs, banking records and other personal information between 2003 and 2005.

Efforts to narrow the Patriot Act (which expanded the power to issue national security letters) are sure to follow, promising new layers of bureaucracy and judicial review. The Beltway scandal machine will demand scalps, perhaps including that of Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, already under attack for the mishandled firings of U.S. attorneys.

But all this commotion — essentially over clerical mismanagement rather than wrongdoing — is a distraction from the real problem: The FBI has become overgrown and unwieldy.

Like a bloated corporate conglomerate, the FBI cannot execute its core missions with focus and flexibility. The FBI is rife with mismanagement. In recent years, it has lost weapons and laptop computers and has been unable to complete a $170-million computer system to manage cases.

In the financial world, markets identify companies that have become too large and should split up. Investment groups take over such companies and either streamline them or spin off units into new, smaller companies.

Federal agencies have no such creative destruction mechanism. Instead, Washington's knee-jerk reaction to every crisis is to encrust already dysfunctional bureaucracies with more layers — witness the monstrously large Department of Homeland Security created after 9/11, or the post of director of national intelligence created after prewar intelligence on Iraq was found wanting.

It makes less and less sense for one agency, the FBI, to be grappling with Internet-savvy Al Qaeda terrorists while also dealing with drug trafficking, insider trading on Wall Street, copyright violations and industrial espionage.

The 9/11 commission in 2004 detailed the FBI's shortcomings in understanding, much less preventing, attacks by Al Qaeda. The next year, the Silberman-Robb commission, which analyzed pre-Iraq war intelligence failings, chronicled the FBI's ongoing difficulties in restructuring to fight terrorism.

But none of these calls for change have gone far enough. Almost all other democracies that face terrorist threats divide internal security from domestic law enforcement. Britain has MI5; France has its Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire; Israel has Shin Bet. We can learn from their experiences, dividing the FBI into a traditional law enforcement arm and a separate, independent counter-terrorism unit.

The FBI's current organizational culture is fundamentally incompatible with foreign intelligence and with war. For instance, the FBI rates and promotes agents based on the number of cases opened and solved. This makes sense if the bureau's sole mission is solving crimes that have already occurred — but not if the mission is gathering intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks.

The inherent inflexibility of the FBI bureaucracy conflicts with the very heart of the intelligence mission. Intelligence officers must be imaginative to intuit patterns that might signal an unconventional attack on the order of 9/11. They need to act more quickly and decisively than traditional law enforcement officers. The FBI moves slowly, managing its employees by command and control. Criminal prosecution is the FBI's preferred tool to handle terrorism. It doesn't think first of double agents, blackmail, bribery or misinformation — all valuable tools in combating terrorism.

The 9/11 attacks forced us to reconsider the nature of war. They should now make us rethink how we organize the government. We have a government whose basic outlines and functions have not changed significantly since the end of World War II. Instead of new limits on the Patriot Act or more layers of inefficient bureaucracy, our leaders in the executive branch and Congress could take a lesson from the financial markets and ask whether it is time for a breakup and spinoff of the FBI.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-yoo21mar21,1,3432312.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

I agree on many points in this article. The FBI's counter terror/intelligence division should have been a separate agency right after 9/11. The bureau even though not that large compared to other agencies, is over whelmed not only with different mission responsibilities but with a lot of internal politics that affect performance.

Desk Jockey

08-09-2007, 09:47 PM

America seems not ready for CCTV's everywhere much less MI-5............ Don't know how that would play politically, I agree with some of your points, but I know next to nothing of the FBI, so any comment is speculative at best.

Also, there are (I believe) other federal law enforcement agencies that can operate domestically against terrorist threats, just not heard about as much, as they should not be, so is there really a gap?

I believe the FBI have permanent agents at the CIA CTC and at embassies. Maybe the emphasis should be on having agencies talk - share - (eliminate stove piping) rather than a massive re-org of the FBI.

Dunno, America is a funny place and it seems like this would take an act of Congress, may not play well, maybe we gotta get hit hard again.

Good topic IMHO.

JJC

08-09-2007, 10:17 PM

I've never heard of FBI agents being at CIA cause that would be a problem with our laws. FBI is the leading agency in charge for counter terror even though there are 16 other agencies, with many in the DHS that also play a role.

The issue with the FBI is that they want to be first at everything and that can't be done. With their new mission at terror protection thousands of other crime files have been put on hold for years now. It would not be a bad idea to create a separate national intell agency and let the FBI go back to their traditional crime fighting. This new agency could "steal" specialists from the 16 or so agencies that do intell, instead today there is just needless rivalry and a lot of waste of resources.

Desk Jockey

08-09-2007, 10:23 PM

HR24

08-09-2007, 11:54 PM

Desk Jockey

08-10-2007, 12:49 AM

You gents fail to grasp the notion that the FBI is the 4th branch of the US government. It's too big and too entrenched for it to be broken up. If the Bureau can't be broken up after a debacle like 9/11, what makes you think they will get broken up now? The only agencies that really took it in the a$$ were the groups thrown into the joke show called DHS. INS needed a MASSIVE overhaul and all that happened was it being renamed to ICE and the US Customs Service disbanded for NO reason at all to help form ICE and CBP.

Like I said sport, after the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court the legislation necessary to change this entity, not to mention the infighting would be WW III. So I grasp the notion. But if the bad guys can pull off a big one, especially in an election year who knows?

If NYC or Boston gets hit with say a "dirty bomb" or a liquid LNG attack, and the FBI (I guess like the Phoenix memo) had intell to prevent it and no one else can take the blame, 4th branch of gov't or not (you sure about that, Justice, DOE, State, or neither) let's just say IMHO it is one big, entrenched institution, hell is coming to breakfast for the folks at the Hoover building.

He has some good points, some I am not fully aware off, ie. where Law enforcement ends / begins and counter terror ends / begings.

Speaking of which, the judicicary, as far as I know applications for surveillance no longer have to go through a FISA court. NSA domestic intercepts of overseas to US vice versa comms? Military Tribunals instead of civilian courts?

Major changes are happening, some are gonna go down probably in front of the Supreme Court as unconstitutuional. Who knows?

Me, I think it will never happen, maybe you mis-understood me. Again, not breaking up, but coordination and increased cooperation. Most of all Turf battles. A 80 year old institution split up, but I would not be so certain of your analysis. You cannot predict our next hit and who (if it is the FBI) will be dragged in front of Congress and fried by the media, because someone will be blamed, post 9/11 especially.

Note: uniformed analysis and or opinion may fall into the buffonnery post category, sure someone will be along.

Ordie

08-10-2007, 01:04 AM

American Enterprise Institute is a Neo-con think tank.

Wasn't this the guy that said it was okay to detain prisoners without Haebeas Corpus?

Desk Jockey

08-10-2007, 01:18 AM

American Enterprise Institute is a Neo-con think tank.

Wasn't this the guy that said it was okay to detain prisoners without Haebeas Corpus?

Don't know about this cat but John Woo is a visiting scholar at AEI, testified in front of Congress so yeah it is their policy.

Until the Supreme Court began trying to make war policy, the writ of habeas corpus had never been understood to benefit enemy prisoners in war. The U.S. held millions of POWs during World War II, with none permitted to use our civilian courts (except for a few cases of U.S. citizens captured fighting for the Axis). Even after hostilities ended, the justices turned away lawsuits by enemy prisoners seeking to challenge their detention. In Johnson v. Eisentrager, the court held that it would not hear habeas claims brought by alien enemy prisoners held outside the U.S., and refused to interpret the Geneva Conventions to give new rights in civilian court against the government. In the case of Gen. Tomoyuki Yama****a, the court refrained from reviewing the operations of military commissions.

While there may be different ways to strike a balance, this is a decision for the president and Congress, not the courts. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts in peacetime, and also declares that habeas corpus can be suspended "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" when "the public Safety may require it." Congress's power is even greater when it is correcting the justices' errors. Courts are ill-equipped to decide whether vast resources should be devoted to reviewing military detentions. Or whether military personnel's time should be consumed traveling back to the U.S. for detainee hearings. Or whether we risk revealing information in these hearings that might compromise the intelligence sources and methods that may allow us to win the war.

The law goes farther. It restores to the president command over the management of the war on terror. It directly reverses Hamdan by making clear that the courts cannot take up the Geneva Conventions. Except for some clearly defined war crimes, whose prosecution would also be up to executive discretion, it leaves interpretation and enforcement of the treaties up to the president. It even forbids courts from relying on foreign or international legal decisions in any decisions involving military commissions.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25032/pub_detail.asp

HR24

08-10-2007, 12:02 PM

Like I said sport, after the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court the legislation necessary to change this entity, not to mention the infighting would be WW III. So I grasp the notion. But if the bad guys can pull off a big one, especially in an election year who knows?

If NYC or Boston gets hit with say a "dirty bomb" or a liquid LNG attack, and the FBI (I guess like the Phoenix memo) had intell to prevent it and no one else can take the blame, 4th branch of gov't or not (you sure about that, Justice, DOE, State, or neither) let's just say IMHO it is one big, entrenched institution, hell is coming to breakfast for the folks at the Hoover building.

He has some good points, some I am not fully aware off, ie. where Law enforcement ends / begins and counter terror ends / begings.

Speaking of which, the judicicary, as far as I know applications for surveillance no longer have to go through a FISA court. NSA domestic intercepts of overseas to US vice versa comms? Military Tribunals instead of civilian courts?

Major changes are happening, some are gonna go down probably in front of the Supreme Court as unconstitutuional. Who knows?

Me, I think it will never happen, maybe you mis-understood me. Again, not breaking up, but coordination and increased cooperation. Most of all Turf battles. A 80 year old institution split up, but I would not be so certain of your analysis. You cannot predict our next hit and who (if it is the FBI) will be dragged in front of Congress and fried by the media, because someone will be blamed, post 9/11 especially.

Note: uniformed analysis and or opinion may fall into the buffonnery post category, sure someone will be along.

You seem to have taken offense to my post and snapped back at me by calling me out. Perhaps it is my true, but slightly muted feelings regarding the agency in question that set you off there Desk Jockey. Wasn't trying to be a prick to you or JJC with my post, and I apoligize if I did come off that way. But I will say this, I've worked quite a bit with the Bureau guys in my AOR and they are all excellent field agents, but the behemoth that they work for, and they will wholeheartedly agree with me here, is an 800lb gorrilla that doesn't know the word change.

I still consider the loss of 3,000 lives in a couple of hours time a "big one" as you call it. What did the Bureau get as a result of their mistakes? A mild slap on the wrist and increased funding for more investigative capabilities and extra agents on the streets. They also turned around and started sucking up other agencies programs (successful ones mind you, like the US Customs Operation GreenQuest which targetted terrorist funding) and attempted to snatch other investigative areas, like Strategic Arms investigations, from other agencies.

They were given $380 million to set up a virtual case file so an agent in say, the Raleigh Resident Office could view and query all case material for an investigation being run by the Chicago SAC office and vice versa. One would think this would be vital for things like federal investigations. They c*cked that up and have since requested additional funding for another system called Sentinel which won't be ready, at the earliest, in 2009. They, along with the contractor, were found at fault for the failure of the system. They are still utilizing the old ACS system. What happened to the Bureau? They got more money from Congress.

WIth the formation of DHS, ICE was established as the sole investigative arm of DHS when it comes to terror threats. That is a beautiful line, but it's just not true. If a case even hints at the prospect of terrorist ties, it must be referred to the FBI, who assumes the role as the lead investigative agency. Sure, ICE is the second largest contributor to the JTTF, but it's like handing the keys back to the teenager who just wrecked your car.

If you are referring to the National Security Letter flap in your fifth paragraph, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bureau argued that they were well within the parameters for CT investigations set forth by then-AG Ashcroft when he revised DOJ guidelines in 2002-2003. Even though he had to adhere to Executive Order 12333, he still gave them a long leash. Did they f*ckup and ask for things that NSLs don't cover or didn't articulate what they were requesting properly? Sure. They may use the hell out of them (100,000+ between 2003 and 2005), but they are well within their authority on them until the law is changed. Will the Bureau get smacked on this? Probably not.

Just pointing out moments that would warrant change and none really came.

Do you really think DOS, even DOE, has more juice than the Bureau/DOJ (I consider the two lovers joined at the hip)? I will argue with you all day on that one.

You and I both agree that a break-up probably won't happen. I am more convinced of it than you, based off of my personal experiences with them and their past history of stepping in a pile of sh*t and walking away with none on their shoes.

What the hell is "buffonnery" anyway? :)

One of the Washington Posts best articles in recent years is on the formation of DHS. Thought I'd throw it in here just to give a little insight on the ineptness and political maneuvering that goes on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102327.html

Steel_Weasel

08-10-2007, 12:52 PM

The author is an absolute idiot who doesn't want to let facts get in his way. He wants the FBI broken up...end of story. A Berkely professor ???
Yeah, tell me this guy doesn't have an axe to grind.

Most of his arguments stem from the FBI's lack of overseas intelligence and terrorism matter that the FBI is by law barred from doing.

He's just another ignorant, angst ridden blowhard.

Laworkerbee

08-10-2007, 02:29 PM

has been unable to complete a $170-million computer system to manage cases.

I'd be more impressed if the author could state ANY government agency that has been able to complete its computer system on time and on budget.

Desk Jockey

08-10-2007, 02:31 PM

You seem to have taken offense to my post and snapped back at me by calling me out. Perhaps it is my true, but slightly muted feelings regarding the agency in question that set you off there Desk Jockey. Wasn't trying to be a prick to you or JJC with my post, and I apoligize if I did come off that way. But I will say this, I've worked quite a bit with the Bureau guys in my AOR and they are all excellent field agents, but the behemoth that they work for, and they will wholeheartedly agree with me here, is an 800lb gorrilla that doesn't know the word change.

I still consider the loss of 3,000 lives in a couple of hours time a "big one" as you call it. What did the Bureau get as a result of their mistakes? A mild slap on the wrist and increased funding for more investigative capabilities and extra agents on the streets. They also turned around and started sucking up other agencies programs (successful ones mind you, like the US Customs Operation GreenQuest which targetted terrorist funding) and attempted to snatch other investigative areas, like Strategic Arms investigations, from other agencies.

They were given $380 million to set up a virtual case file so an agent in say, the Raleigh Resident Office could view and query all case material for an investigation being run by the Chicago SAC office and vice versa. One would think this would be vital for things like federal investigations. They c*cked that up and have since requested additional funding for another system called Sentinel which won't be ready, at the earliest, in 2009. They, along with the contractor, were found at fault for the failure of the system. They are still utilizing the old ACS system. What happened to the Bureau? They got more money from Congress.

WIth the formation of DHS, ICE was established as the sole investigative arm of DHS when it comes to terror threats. That is a beautiful line, but it's just not true. If a case even hints at the prospect of terrorist ties, it must be referred to the FBI, who assumes the role as the lead investigative agency. Sure, ICE is the second largest contributor to the JTTF, but it's like handing the keys back to the teenager who just wrecked your car.

If you are referring to the National Security Letter flap in your fifth paragraph, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bureau argued that they were well within the parameters for CT investigations set forth by then-AG Ashcroft when he revised DOJ guidelines in 2002-2003. Even though he had to adhere to Executive Order 12333, he still gave them a long leash. Did they f*ckup and ask for things that NSLs don't cover or didn't articulate what they were requesting properly? Sure. They may use the hell out of them (100,000+ between 2003 and 2005), but they are well within their authority on them until the law is changed. Will the Bureau get smacked on this? Probably not.

Just pointing out moments that would warrant change and none really came.

Do you really think DOS, even DOE, has more juice than the Bureau/DOJ (I consider the two lovers joined at the hip)? I will argue with you all day on that one.

You and I both agree that a break-up probably won't happen. I am more convinced of it than you, based off of my personal experiences with them and their past history of stepping in a pile of sh*t and walking away with none on their shoes.

What the hell is "buffonnery" anyway? :)

One of the Washington Posts best articles in recent years is on the formation of DHS. Thought I'd throw it in here just to give a little insight on the ineptness and political maneuvering that goes on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102327.html

Dude, no reason at all to apoligize, clearly your are far more versed in the inner workings of the FBI then I. Therefore, i

Desk Jockey

08-10-2007, 02:41 PM

You seem to have taken offense to my post and snapped back at me by calling me out. Perhaps it is my true, but slightly muted feelings regarding the agency in question that set you off there Desk Jockey. Wasn't trying to be a prick to you or JJC with my post, and I apoligize if I did come off that way. But I will say this, I've worked quite a bit with the Bureau guys in my AOR and they are all excellent field agents, but the behemoth that they work for, and they will wholeheartedly agree with me here, is an 800lb gorrilla that doesn't know the word change.

I still consider the loss of 3,000 lives in a couple of hours time a "big one" as you call it. What did the Bureau get as a result of their mistakes? A mild slap on the wrist and increased funding for more investigative capabilities and extra agents on the streets. They also turned around and started sucking up other agencies programs (successful ones mind you, like the US Customs Operation GreenQuest which targetted terrorist funding) and attempted to snatch other investigative areas, like Strategic Arms investigations, from other agencies.

They were given $380 million to set up a virtual case file so an agent in say, the Raleigh Resident Office could view and query all case material for an investigation being run by the Chicago SAC office and vice versa. One would think this would be vital for things like federal investigations. They c*cked that up and have since requested additional funding for another system called Sentinel which won't be ready, at the earliest, in 2009. They, along with the contractor, were found at fault for the failure of the system. They are still utilizing the old ACS system. What happened to the Bureau? They got more money from Congress.

WIth the formation of DHS, ICE was established as the sole investigative arm of DHS when it comes to terror threats. That is a beautiful line, but it's just not true. If a case even hints at the prospect of terrorist ties, it must be referred to the FBI, who assumes the role as the lead investigative agency. Sure, ICE is the second largest contributor to the JTTF, but it's like handing the keys back to the teenager who just wrecked your car.

If you are referring to the National Security Letter flap in your fifth paragraph, I wouldn't be surprised if the Bureau argued that they were well within the parameters for CT investigations set forth by then-AG Ashcroft when he revised DOJ guidelines in 2002-2003. Even though he had to adhere to Executive Order 12333, he still gave them a long leash. Did they f*ckup and ask for things that NSLs don't cover or didn't articulate what they were requesting properly? Sure. They may use the hell out of them (100,000+ between 2003 and 2005), but they are well within their authority on them until the law is changed. Will the Bureau get smacked on this? Probably not.

Just pointing out moments that would warrant change and none really came.

Do you really think DOS, even DOE, has more juice than the Bureau/DOJ (I consider the two lovers joined at the hip)? I will argue with you all day on that one.

You and I both agree that a break-up probably won't happen. I am more convinced of it than you, based off of my personal experiences with them and their past history of stepping in a pile of sh*t and walking away with none on their shoes.

What the hell is "buffonnery" anyway? :)

One of the Washington Posts best articles in recent years is on the formation of DHS. Thought I'd throw it in here just to give a little insight on the ineptness and political maneuvering that goes on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102327.html

No reason to apoligize dude, clearly your are far more informed on the inner workings and habits of the FBI then me. Therefore I defer to your expertise and analysis.

Allot gets lost in translation in internet conversation, I also did not mean to come off like a jerk or take it to a personal level.

Just never saw the FBI as the 4th biggest tenant of gov't but you got me thinking mate. And thanks for that.

I hope we sincerely never have to see if the FBI is "broken up" because that would mean AQ pulled another big one.

Yeah the FBI does come away clean from allot of boondoggles.

Bufoonnery, I will copywright that to Matchanu, loosley defined by me when you post about something you know nothing about but think your informed. Or, worse an airsofter telling a real deal about CQB.

It also covers making thread or a post that the mods just got done saying was off limits.

Mindless posts in general I guess.

Thanks for your insight.

Cheers,

DJ

Ordie

08-10-2007, 03:18 PM

A Berkely professor ???
Yeah, tell me this guy doesn't have an axe to grind.

He's employed by a Neo-con think tank who drafted the Patriot Act and counseled Bush that the use of torture was okay along with the denial of due process for enemy combatants.

Not the Berkeley type.

HR24

08-10-2007, 04:11 PM

I'd be more impressed if the author could state ANY government agency that has been able to complete its computer system on time and on budget.

So true, so true. Their's has a little added incentive to get up and running though.

HR24

08-10-2007, 04:18 PM

No reason to apoligize dude, clearly your are far more informed on the inner workings and habits of the FBI then me. Therefore I defer to your expertise and analysis.

Allot gets lost in translation in internet conversation, I also did not mean to come off like a jerk or take it to a personal level.

Just never saw the FBI as the 4th biggest tenant of gov't but you got me thinking mate. And thanks for that.

I hope we sincerely never have to see if the FBI is "broken up" because that would mean AQ pulled another big one.

Yeah the FBI does come away clean from allot of boondoggles.

Bufoonnery, I will copywright that to Matchanu, loosley defined by me when you post about something you know nothing about but think your informed. Or, worse an airsofter telling a real deal about CQB.

It also covers making thread or a post that the mods just got done saying was off limits.

Mindless posts in general I guess.

Thanks for your insight.

Cheers,

DJ

No problems. We're cool mate.

MichaelF

08-10-2007, 04:44 PM

We need something like the Stasi, only more cuddly.

California Joe

08-10-2007, 04:53 PM

Most 3 letter agencies and several commands in the DoD have liason officers stationed at the other agencies. My last command was a DoD joint command and we had liasons at every damned agency there was. They all had officers at our house too.

2Sheds_Jackson

08-10-2007, 06:45 PM

I'd be more impressed if the author could state ANY government agency that has been able to complete its computer system on time and on budget.

Good lord yes. At the one I worked at, we had old timers who wouldn't even use a computer. And of course there was no getting rid of them - since they were barricaded in the nice corner offices with the windows. :-(

Desk Jockey

08-10-2007, 08:25 PM

We need something like the Stasi, only more cuddly.

yeah when the got hold of the records 1 out of 3 or 4 family members were informing on each other.:)

Laconian

08-10-2007, 08:59 PM

Desk Jockey

08-10-2007, 10:16 PM

I'd like to see all of Federal law enforcement overhauled, but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Well, not in the way I'd do it. The formation of DHS and the reshuffle of agencies that recently occurred was one OF (and remains) the biggest goat ropes I've ever seen (and had to live through - although my agency fared pretty well).

The FBI has always been its own worst enemy. Generally their street agents are pretty good guys just wanting to make cases, but when three or more and a supervisor are floating around, they get all weird about stuff - you kinda have to see it. Their biggest problem is that they believe their own press releases and most Americans think they can do half the crap they say they can. When they screw up they get a bigger budget and more agents.

Laconian, if that informer with info in the 93 WTC attack was authorized to be used could that have been prevented?

I am a little hazy but he had identified the bad guys and essentially the outlines of the plan right?

Then the field guys got shut down by the sup.

Was the flick "Path to Paradise" hollyweird, or an accurate representation of the way a supervisor can get in the way of an agent using a good CI.
Wasn't there a problem with his Egyptian intel ties or something like that?

MichaelF

08-11-2007, 01:51 AM

yeah when the got hold of the records 1 out of 3 or 4 family members were informing on each other.:)

Didn't it come out, in the last few years, that some currently famous guy was being spied (during the 80's) on by his current wife? I forget who.

Desk Jockey

08-11-2007, 03:40 AM

Didn't it come out, in the last few years, that some currently famous guy was being spied (during the 80's) on by his current wife? I forget who.

Ulrich Muhe, his former wife was Jeny Grollman, also an actress. In the papers recently because a film has been made about it. She is trying or has gotten a court injunction against the film.

500 or so pages allegedy on him filed by her with her stasi handler.

Mr Gently Benevolent

08-11-2007, 05:00 AM

nagant_m44

08-11-2007, 05:25 AM

the FBI shoudn't even exist. No federal law enforcement should exist, besides the US marshals.

Desk Jockey

08-11-2007, 06:07 AM

The time for a major re-vamp of US intelligence structures has came and went, it was around the time of J.J Angleton that a intelligence structure similar to the UK was proposed to more effectively counter Soviet intelligence operations.

And JJ trusted Kim Philby, his drinking buddy, and the Douche was able to skip town from Beirut to mother Russia.

Angleton ruined allot of good CIA officer careers with his delusional mole hunt. When the mole was in MI -6 the whole time.

And I also disagree, the big move was to bring in Reinhard Ghelen and his Abwehr and other SD - SS Soviet Intel specialists, look the other way for WW II Crimes committed by some (at least for SD-SS - Gestapo units declared criminal) types cover - recruit them, bring them out through the rat line and give them new identitities and put them to work for the OSS then CIA.

Basically setting up a Soviet Intel shop for the OSS out of the purview of the FBI. I think Hoover clung on to Latin America for a while. But thus was born the SE (Soviet Eastern division) with the FBI no longer having their hands on Soviet Eastern Europe intel matters.

Times were tough, and I do not judge, we had no intelligence apparatus against the Soviets and the Germans did. Gehlen went on to start the BND I believe.

Laconian

08-11-2007, 07:34 AM

Laconian, if that informer with info in the 93 WTC attack was authorized to be used could that have been prevented?

I am a little hazy but he had identified the bad guys and essentially the outlines of the plan right?

Then the field guys got shut down by the sup.

Was the flick "Path to Paradise" hollyweird, or an accurate representation of the way a supervisor can get in the way of an agent using a good CI.
Wasn't there a problem with his Egyptian intel ties or something like that?

The use of informants is tricky stuff, especially when you are walking (or were trying to walk) the line between intel and crim activities, because different rules applied under then-AG Reno. A lot of folks can come out after the fact and point fingers and say, "if, but, woulda, coulda, shoulda" Every agency has folks promoted above their competency level due to nepotism, ingratiating, careerists, etc. The FBI, as an institution, does not allow a lot of discretion down at agent level. Like every big bureaucracy they have a lot of rules and they sometimes get in the way of work. I had an FBI agent once tell me, "Hey, this is the FBI; an ounce of appearance is worth a pound of performance." Realistically, that can be said about any agency, but it was funny coming from him,

I didn't see the movie, Path to Paradise." A number of things can get in the way of using a good CI. Supervisors, AUSA's, other agencies, etc. I've never seen a movie that realistically dealt with a CI/agent/cop relationship. Most CI's are scumbags, their handlers know this, but they are a necessary evil.

Mr Gently Benevolent

08-11-2007, 12:24 PM

And JJ trusted Kim Philby, his drinking buddy, and the Douche was able to skip town from Beirut to mother Russia.

Angleton ruined allot of good CIA officer careers with his delusional mole hunt. When the mole was in MI -6 the whole time.J.J Angleton had been involved with Philby during WW2 after all it was the British who helped train many OSS personel in counter intelligence operations and close relationships had been built in these troubled times, however even Philby acknowledged in an interview that Angleton was starting to suspect himself and other British agents with Soviet complicity.
Angleton was in an unassailable position of power for many years so he did attract a little envy and therefore detraction from many would be heirs to the throne.

Desk Jockey

08-11-2007, 12:50 PM

J.J Angleton had been involved with Philby during WW2 after all it was the British who helped train many OSS personel in counter intelligence operations and close relationships had been built in these troubled times, however even Philby acknowledged in an interview that Angleton was starting to suspect himself and other British agents with Soviet complicity.
Angleton was in an unassailable position of power for many years so he did attract at little of envy and therefore detraction from many would be heirs to the throne.

True mate, you, the cousins taught us how operatea counter intel shop, but Angleton sent many good CIA officers out of the business on skant evidence. Good men who had no desire for his job, just patriots.

Correct, who really could see the Cambridge 5, especially Philby coming after the tightly forged bonds of WW II and after when we did not have a clue how to run a shop and the Brits showed us the way.

Very True Mate, a unique set of circumstances.

JJC

08-11-2007, 01:17 PM

Erm whys that?

The constitution doesn't say much about forming law enforcement agencies. The Marshals and later Secret Service were the originals. Today's bloated Justice Department's law enforcing agencies like the FBI, DEA, IRS etc..were formed under the executive branch... Article 2 section 3 - "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

JJC

08-11-2007, 01:27 PM

But do they do there job?

if the answers yes does it matter if there unpopular and setup ander any act they can think of as long as they get the right results

I'm not arguing about that, just answered what nagant meant by no feds should exist.

nagant_m44

08-11-2007, 03:12 PM

But do they do there job?

if the answers yes does it matter if there unpopular and setup ander any act they can think of as long as they get the right results

yes the US marshals do their job. Who do you think did just about all federal law enforcement until the FBI was created?

Desk Jockey

08-11-2007, 04:15 PM

yes the US marshals do their job. Who do you think did just about all federal law enforcement until the FBI was created?

Yeah dude but are they serching for NBC weapons DOE NEST team capabilities, doing drug interdiction, leading kidnapping investigations, weapon enforcement. tracking foreign bad guys / spies, securing the borders, protecting the president/ VIPs, financial fraud, enforcing the tax code, domestic hostage recscue / barricade suspect situations, manning the entry ports?

Their tasking sems to be defined, and the lack of other agencies seems unrealistic.

alex kendall

08-11-2007, 04:39 PM

I Think That Tha Fbi In America Is Awol...why Else Would Prisoners Be Held In Places Like Guantanamo Bay????

snoddy

08-11-2007, 04:56 PM

the FBI needs to stick to its original reason for existing and leave terrorism to professionals and should stick to kidnaping's, bank robbery's etc....

the CIA has spooks to handle terrorism and we should unleash them.
if anything most former military members join the spooks for common reasons...

the DEA is job security, there will always be a war on drugs, its been going on now for what? 20yrs? they suck at doing their job. maybe they should consider drug dealers as terrorists and maybe then things would change.

MichaelF

08-11-2007, 06:25 PM

I Think That Tha Fbi In America Is Awol...why Else Would Prisoners Be Held In Places Like Guantanamo Bay????

Errr, because they aren't under Civil Detention. They are under Military Detention, much like EPWs would be, except that we choose not to grant them EPW status (as is our right, under the Geneva Conventions).

Also, and more germane to your comment, the FBI does not have anything to do with prisoners or detention facilities.

That Investigation part of FBI escape your notice?

Desk Jockey

08-11-2007, 06:38 PM

I Think That Tha Fbi In America Is Awol...why Else Would Prisoners Be Held In Places Like Guantanamo Bay????

They are being prosecuted as enemy combatants in militiary tribunals.:roll:

And speaking of Marshall's they run the federal clinks, if that is where the AQ bad guys where being housed.

Edit: Michael IF Answered spot on and beat me to it, should have finished the thread before sounding off.

@snoddy the DEA sucks, care to elaborate? seems to me demand is not coming down and how can we blame them. Meth is out of control, care to take down a meth lab, with those chemicals presesnt? Seizures happen, guys risk their life underocover, does the US Army suck for not eliminating opium in the stan?

Unleashing spooks domesitcally would violate the constitution dude.

snoddy

08-11-2007, 07:02 PM

They are being prosecuted as enemy combatants in militiary tribunals.:roll:

And speaking of Marshall's they run the federal clinks.

Edit: Michael IF Answered spot on.

@snoddy the DEA sucks, care to elaborate, seems to me demand is not coming down and how can we blame them. Seizures happen, guys risk their life underocover, does the US Army suck for not eliminating opium in the stan?

honestly thats a hard one for me, maybe sucks was too strong a word but at the moment it fit. in the countries where its grown and bought sold traded and so on is how they make a living. when it crosses our borders and coasts and becomes a regular daily job to do so is just ridiculous. its just silly to think for the past 30+ yrs this has been goin on and during the 80s it blew up into a whole " war on drugs " is horrible. i know many agents have died doing their job trying to stop this process, but i think if more focus was on border/coasts and customs for the past 25+ yrs then maybe it would of been different. but i have been to the academy and talked to agents and toured the facility @ Quantico so i do kinda know the job security part of it. one agent told me itll take 50yrs (exaggeration)to end the war on drugs in america for good or bad, others said its because the money seized from said busts are used for many things that wouldnt get funding. its a big vicious circle.... the whole thing just sucks ill just say that... sorry for making it personal.

http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/4273/deabh7.jpg
me outside the DEA Academy

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3551/hrtbirdrg4.jpg
and down the street from the DEA Academy
is me on a HRT bird @ the FBI Academy

snoddy

08-11-2007, 07:07 PM

Unleashing spooks domesitcally would violate the constitution dude.
i dont understand, how can civilians doing civilian jobs be against it? having them work intel on groups already in the US (im not getting into the whole Patriot Act), people they know who are attached to certain terrorists groups through whatever paper trail. i meant the FBI should be concerned about other things and let the CIA work that angle. thats all i was saying.

Desk Jockey

08-11-2007, 07:23 PM

@snoddy no reason to sorry, these are emotianal issues we are dealing with here, across the medium of internet, no worries, the DEA proababy has been called worse.p-)

The CIA cannot operate domestically, it is against the law even treason by CIA personnell has to be turned over to the FBI (Ames). Forget terrorism for a second. It would again take a massive act of Congress with an execuitve signature and then certainly challenged up to the Supreme Court.

snoddy

08-11-2007, 07:32 PM

are you serious? well wtf no wonder ****s so messed up....
that makes no sense at all....

i wanted to take a juant over to langly when we were down there but we couldnt.

MichaelF

08-11-2007, 07:37 PM

Unleashing spooks domesitcally would violate the constitution dude.

Nope.

The CIA (specifically, but the other Intel agencies, such as DIA and NSA, are considered to be in the same bracket) are forbidden from domestic operations (not all operations, just police and law enforcement ops) by it's Charter, not any Constitutional edict.

CIA personnel have no power of arrest, nor are they Criminal Investigators (1811s). As such, they have no ability to interfere with (arrest or surveilllance) US Citizens, when those Citizens are under the purview of domestic LEOs (iow, when they are on US territory). US Citizens outside US territory are fair game for surveillance.

All of the above could change with one Executive Order (as the POTUS is the man who decides how Executive Branch organizations work).

Currently, we have no real equivalent to MI5 (which combines the FBI's investigative and Counterintelligence portfolio with parts of the CIA's foreign and covert operations aspects).

snoddy

08-11-2007, 07:48 PM

that makes sense...

after 911 everyone cried about how the FBI and CIA needed to work together.
it would just make sense i guess to some people that if the CIA was watching certain groups outside the US and they had supporters inside the US they would watch them aswell? and be able to do so with ease.

weird how 911 would bring out a Rainbow6 ctu.

friggin video games.... next thing you know we'll have Ghosts runnin around and Argyll makin mods for them... ha.....

Desk Jockey

08-11-2007, 08:10 PM

Nope.

The CIA (specifically, but the other Intel agencies, such as DIA and NSA, are considered to be in the same bracket) are forbidden from domestic operations (not all operations, just police and law enforcement ops) by it's Charter, not any Constitutional edict.

CIA personnel have no power of arrest, nor are they Criminal Investigators (1811s). As such, they have no ability to interfere with (arrest or surveilllance) US Citizens, when those Citizens are under the purview of domestic LEOs (iow, when they are on US territory). US Citizens outside US territory are fair game for surveillance.

All of the above could change with one Executive Order (as the POTUS is the man who decides how Executive Branch organizations work).

Currently, we have no real equivalent to MI5 (which combines the FBI's investigative and Counterintelligence portfolio with parts of the CIA's foreign and covert operations aspects).

So the CIA can operate in the US? Just not arrest, confused man?:-( So it is not constitutional just an in house charter????

Thanks for the insight dude.

The CIA watches bad guy A in Pakistan, he comes to the US, then they still watch him until he needs to be arrested?

Seriously?

snoddy

08-11-2007, 08:22 PM

ha, as long as someone is watching the bad guys they can call a cop to come and arrest them... lol....

Laconian

08-11-2007, 08:25 PM

nullterm

08-11-2007, 10:22 PM

Overlap is always better than gaps.

helomech

08-11-2007, 10:44 PM

The whole war on drugs has been going since the days of the Vietnam War,not just the last 20 years;it's been the last number if years of the GWOT that you have not heard so much of it,but it's still alive and kicking..

HR24

08-11-2007, 11:43 PM

The perception that if we organized our intel/crim organizations along the lines of our cousins across the pond, all overlap and extraneous work would end an comms would be great is BS. I've been fortunate to have worked with MI5 and they are some truly squared away cats - but you know what? They had overlap and comms and jurisdictional issues/squabbles with Scotland Yard (Special Branch) and MI6. You cannot eliminate overlap and political jockeying for a bigger budget. No one agency can do it all and no one agency can serve 2 masters - intell and crim work - well. Especially, when agents are expected to move between disciplines.

Laconian here has said the magical word when it comes to this game-BUDGET.

@Snoddy, DEA is for the most part a good agency and it is filled with excellent agents doing good work. Customs was in the game ever since it went into overdrive in the 1980's with the Cocaine Cowboy days. Hell, Customs agents were used in the establishment of the BNDD and eventually DEA. Like I've said before, it all begins with the source countries.

helomech

08-11-2007, 11:51 PM

Laconian here has said the magical word when it comes to this game-BUDGET.

@Snoddy, DEA is for the most part a good agency and it is filled with excellent agents doing good work. Customs was in the game ever since it went into overdrive in the 1980's with the Cocaine Cowboy days. Hell, Customs agents were used in the establishment of the BNDD and eventually DEA. Like I've said before, it all begins with the source countries.

DEA has its' fill of cowboys,so don't sh1t yourself:running around Central and South American countries with their navy blue windbreakers and ball caps emblazoned with 'DEA' on them and acting arrogant as fu_ck;hopefully they've learned a thing or two about how to go about conducting themselves out in the general populace...

snoddy

08-12-2007, 12:11 AM

@Snoddy, DEA is for the most part a good agency and it is filled with excellent agents doing good work. Customs was in the game ever since it went into overdrive in the 1980's with the Cocaine Cowboy days. Hell, Customs agents were used in the establishment of the BNDD and eventually DEA. Like I've said before, it all begins with the source countries.
well if they ever stepped up the war on drugs and decided to go after the country itself for the distribution of its product into America that could be one way of dealing with it...

MichaelF

08-12-2007, 12:23 AM

So the CIA can operate in the US? Just not arrest, confused man?:-( So it is not constitutional just an in house charter????

Thanks for the insight dude.

The CIA watches bad guy A in Pakistan, he comes to the US, then they still watch him until he needs to be arrested?

Seriously?

Depends on what you mean by "operate". They "operate" at Langley and elsewhere, so clearly they aren't banned from the US.

They cannot investigate, surveil or arrest on US soil (FBI and other LEOs handle that). Which pretty much covers the CIAs general activities.

The CIA monitors a bad guy coming into the US, they call the FBI, who have the resources to handle it (often passing it to local agencies, like the NYPD).

Remember that the I in CIA stands for Intelligence. Not shooting or bombing, although a small amount of operations end that way (Predators, etc). It's not like 24.

Not to mention, the FBI guards it's turf (Domestic CI) like nothing you've ever seen.

snoddy

08-12-2007, 12:37 AM

Strategic Intent 2007-2011

https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/strategic_intent_2007_2011a.gif (https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/strategic_intent_2007_2011.jpg)

Director's Message

This Strategic Intent, which benefited greatly from [employee] comments and suggestions, is our roadmap for the next five years. It will enable us to become a more effective organization in fulfilling our paramount mission: protecting the American people. Its central theme is integration—operating as a team within our Agency and with our Community colleagues. We must combine our talents according to what the mission requires. Our common culture will be One Agency, One Community.

This Intent is fully consistent with both the President's National Security Strategy and the DNI's National Intelligence Strategy, which call for the nation's intelligence enterprise to become “more unified, coordinated and effective.”

I am excited about this Intent because of the promise it holds for our Agency. As we better integrate our core capabilities—and as we take steps to strengthen those capabilities—we will meet the demands placed on us by the challenging strategic environment that our country faces.
As we meet our strategic goals, we will be true to our core values: Service, Integrity, and Excellence. They are the constants that reflect the best of our Agency's unique history and accomplishments. These are the values that have served us well and will guide us as we embark on making our Strategic Intent a reality.

/sig/
Gen. Michael V. Hayden
Director, Central Intelligence Agency

Strategic Intent 2007-2011 [PDF 544KB (https://www.cia.gov/about-cia/strategic_intent.pdf)*]
Vision

One Agency. One Community. An Agency unmatched in its core capabilities, functioning as one team, fully integrated into the Intelligence Community.

The Mission

We are the nation's first line of defense. We accomplish what others cannot accomplish and go where others cannot go. We carry out our mission by:

Collecting information that reveals the plans, intentions and capabilities of our adversaries and provides the basis for decision and action.
Producing timely analysis that provides insight, warning and opportunity to the President and decisionmakers charged with protecting and advancing America's interests.
Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives.

Core Values

Service. We put Country first and Agency before self. Quiet patriotism is our hallmark. We are dedicated to the mission, and we pride ourselves on our extraordinary responsiveness to the needs of our customers.
Integrity. We uphold the highest standards of conduct. We seek and speak the truth—to our colleagues and to our customers. We honor those Agency officers who have come before us and we honor the colleagues with whom we work today.
Excellence. We hold ourselves—and each other—to the highest standards. We embrace personal accountability. We reflect on our performance and learn from that reflection.

The Strategic Environment

We operate in an unstable and dangerous world where international terrorism, the rise of new powers, and the accelerating pace of economic and technological change will place enormous strains on the ability of states to govern and will sharply increase the potential for strategic surprises.

Our adversaries in the long war on terrorism are dispersed across the globe; they are resilient, ruthless, patient and committed to the mass murder of our citizens.
The possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction threatens international stability and the safety of our homeland.
The rise of China and India and the emergence of new economic “centers” will transform the geopolitical and economic landscape.
Weak governments, lagging economies, competition for resources, and youth bulges will create crises in many regions.

The Nation's Expectations

The American people look to us as never before. The bar has been set very high and appropriately so. They look to us to protect their way of life, to be dedicated to the security of the United States, and to uphold and defend the Constitution. They expect our nation's leaders to hold us accountable. They expect that in pursuit of our mission we will take risks and honor the very national values we seek to protect. They expect us to keep secrets but not have anything to hide. They expect us to work with integrity and speak truth to power.

Our Goals

1. Integrating Intelligence Capabilities

1.1 Align mission, activities, and capabilities with the National Intelligence Strategy.
1.2 Create an environment for effective collaboration within CIA.
1.3 Continually seek expanded opportunities for partnering with the national security community.
1.4 Broaden and deepen ties with foreign partners to enhance mission performance.
1.5 Strengthen our ability to systematically capture and share lessons learned from our intelligence successes and failures.
2. Fulfilling a Leadership Role in the Intelligence Community

2.1 Build an integrated national HUMINT service and enhance the Intelligence Community's relationship with foreign intelligence services.
2.2 Lead the integrated center dedicated to the highest quality collection, analysis and dissemination of open source materials.
2.3 Pioneer innovative, all-source analytical methods that can be adopted across the IC.
3. Strengthening Core Capabilities

3.1 Expand and deepen expertise across all mission areas.
3.2 Develop and deploy innovative ways to penetrate the toughest targets.
3.3 Continue to enhance analytic tradecraft, strengthen strategic analysis, and expand analytic outreach.
3.4 Improve global coverage to enhance our ability to anticipate and respond to emerging challenges and opportunities.
3.5 Develop more robust and agile covert action capabilities.
3.6 Advance mission through the development, introduction, and application of innovative technologies, leveraging advances made elsewhere in the Intelligence Community, US Government and industry.
4. Investing in Our People

4.1 Develop and sustain an Agency-wide culture—One Team, One Set of Values—where goals are mutually shared and honored.
4.2 Align the rewards and incentives programs to support the goals of this Strategic Intent—becoming an organization that encourages and rewards mission contributions in traditional and non-traditional assignments.
4.3 Recruit, develop, and retain exceptional individuals from a diverse talent pool.
4.4 Develop Agency leaders with the skills and abilities necessary to promote more effective Agency performance and contributing to cross-cutting Intelligence Community objectives.
4.5 Enhance employee health, safety, and quality of life to create an environment that enables people to work more effectively.
5. Creating a 21st Century Infrastructure

5.1 Improve IT infrastructure both to integrate more effectively our capabilities and to service an increasingly dispersed workforce.
5.2 Modernize and expand our physical infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing workforce.
5.3 Ensure CIA's ability to continue essential operations even under adverse circumstances by expanding our distributed mission capabilities.

snoddy

08-12-2007, 12:43 AM

Our Mission
To protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners.
Our Priorities
In executing the following priorities, we will produce and use intelligence to protect the nation from threats and to bring to justice those who violate the law.

http://www.fbi.gov/homeimag/clear_spacer.gif
1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack
2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
4. Combat public corruption at all levels
5. Protect civil rights
6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises
7. Combat major white-collar crime
8. Combat significant violent crime
9. Support federal, state, local and international partners
10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform
the FBI's mission
Our People
On July 3, 2007, we had a total of 30,646 employees. That includes 12,444 special agents and 18,202 support professionals such as intelligence analysts, language specialists, scientists, information technology specialists, and other professionals. Learn how you can join us at FBIJobs.gov (https://www.fbijobs.gov/).
Our Budget & Strategic Plan
In fiscal year 2007, our total budget was approximately $6.04 billion, including $318 million in program increases for our counterterrorism, surveillance, information technology, forensics, training, and information sharing programs. Read our strategic plan in brochure (http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/publications/strategicplan/strategicplanfull.pdf) or text (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/strategicplan/stategicplantext.htm) formats.
Our Locations
We work literally around the globe. Along with our Headquarters (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/area.htm) in Washington, D.C., we have 56 field offices (http://www.fbi.gov/contact/fo/fo.htm) located in major cities throughout the U.S., 400+ resident agencies in smaller cities and towns across the nation, and more than 50 international offices called “Legal Attaches” (http://www.fbi.gov/contact/legat/legat.htm) in U.S. embassies worldwide.
Our History
The FBI was established in 1908. See our History website (http://www.fbi.gov/fbihistory.htm) and How the FBI Got its Name (http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/bureauname032406.htm) for more details on our evolution and achievements over the years.
Our Motto
“Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity”
Our Core Values
• Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States;
• Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
• Compassion;
• Fairness;
• Uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity;
• Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions
and the consequences of our actions and decisions; and
• Leadership, both personal and professional.

FBI PRIORITIES
In executing the following priorities, we will produce and use intelligence to protect the nation from threats and to bring to justice those who violate the law.
1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack.
2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage.
3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes.
4. Combat public corruption at all levels.
5. Protect civil rights.
6. Combat transnational and national criminal organizations and enterprises.
7. Combat major white-collar crime.
8. Combat significant violent crime.
9. Support federal, state, county, municipal, and international partners.
10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI's mission.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the investigative arm of the US Department of Justice. The FBI's investigative authority can be found in Title 28, Section 533 of the US Code. Additionally, there are other statutes, such as the Congressional Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault Act (Title 18, US Code, Section 351), which give the FBI responsibility to investigate specific crimes.

Evolution of the FBI

July 26, 1908
No specific name assigned; referred to as Special Agent Force

March 16, 1909
Bureau of Investigation

July 1, 1932
U.S. Bureau
of Investigation

August 10, 1933
Division of Investigation
(The Division also included the Bureau of Prohibition)

July 1, 1935
Federal Bureau
of Investigation
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/factsfigure/images/badges.jpg

MOTTO
The FBI motto is "Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity."

MISSION
The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to federal, state, municipal, and international agencies and partners. The organization with these responsibilities has not always been called the FBI.

CORE VALUES
The FBI will strive for excellence in all aspects of its missions. In pursuing these missions and vision, the FBI and its employees will be true to, and exemplify, the following core values:
. Adherence to the rule of law and the rights conferred to all under the United States Constitution;
. Integrity through everyday ethical behavior;
. Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions
and the consequences of our actions and decisions;
. Fairness in dealing with people; and
. Leadership through example, both at work and in our communities.

FBI Leadership Past and Present
Since its creation in 1908, the FBI has had ten Directors:

1908-1912
Chief Examiner
Stanley Finch

1912-1919
Chief
A. Bruce Bielaski

1919-1921
Director
William J. Flynn

1921-1924
Director
William J. Burns

1924-1972
Director
J. Edgar Hoover

1973-1978
Director
Clarence M. Kelley

1978-1987
Director
William H. Webster

1987-1993
Director
William S. Sessions

1993-2001
Director
Louis J. Freeh

2001-Present
Director
Robert S. Mueller, III

THE DIRECTOR
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/factsfigure/images/moviefbistory.jpgThe FBI is headed by a Director who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. On October 15, 1976, in reaction to the extraordinary 48-year term of J. Edgar Hoover, Congress passed Public Law 94-503, which limits the term of each FBI Director to ten years.

The current Director, Robert S. Mueller, III, was confirmed as Director of the FBI by the Senate on August 2, 2001. He took the oath of office on September 4, 2001. Director Mueller previously served as US Attorney for the Districts of Northern California and Massachusetts and as Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division. Director Mueller has experience in the private practice of law and is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. For three years, he also served as an officer in the United States Marine Corps. Director Mueller holds a bachelor of arts degree from Princeton University, a master's degree in international relations from New York University,and a law degree from the University of Virginia.

HEADQUARTERShttp://www.fbi.gov/libref/factsfigure/images/fbihq.jpg
FBI Headquarters is currently located in the J. Edgar Hoover Building on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC The Special Agents and support personnel who work at Headquarters organize and coordinate FBI activities around the world. Headquarters personnel determine investigative priorities, oversee major cases, and manage the organization's resources, technology, and personnel. Headquarters also has a role in gathering and distributing information. If a Special Agent in Boise, Idaho, has some information that would help an Agent in New York City solve a case, Headquarters is responsible for making sure the information gets from Boise to New York.

Headquarters plays a key role in fighting terrorism. It is the focal point for intelligence, not only from around the country, but from the CIA and various countries overseas. Headquarters takes the intelligence information it collects, analyzes it, and sends it to field offices, state and municipal police departments, and other federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security.
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/factsfigure/images/lab.jpg
In the late 1990s, the FBI put a professional scientist in charge of the Laboratory and instituted reforms to improve evidence handling and optimize research.

As the FBI has grown, some Headquarters functions have been moved to other locations. The Criminal Justice Information Services Division is located in Clarksburg, West Virginia. The Laboratory and Investigative Technologies Divisions are located in Quantico, Virginia. Other specialized facilities, such as high-tech computer forensics centers, are at various locations across the country.

FBI BUDGET
In fiscal year (FY) 2003, the FBI received a total of $4.298 billion, including $540.281 million in net program increases to enhance Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, Cybercrime, Information Technology, Security, Forensics, Training, and Criminal Programs.

THE FIELD
The nuts and bolts work of the FBI is done in its 56 field offices and their 400 satellite offices, known as resident agencies. It is the Special Agent in the field who looks for clues, tracks down leads, and works with local law enforcement to catch and arrest criminals. A Special Agent in Charge oversees each field office, except for the largest field offices, in Washington, DC; Los Angeles; and New York City, which are headed by an Assistant Director.

INTERNATIONAL OFFICES
In addition to its field offices across the United States, the FBI has 45 offices known as Legal Attachés or "Legats" located around the world. Legats are our first line of defense beyond our borders. Their goals are simple-to stop foreign crime as far from American shores as possible and to help solve international crimes that do occur as quickly as possible.

To accomplish these goals, each Legat works with law enforcement and security agencies in their host country to coordinate investigations of interest to both countries. Some Legats are responsible for coordination with law enforcement personnel in several countries. The purpose of these Legats is strictly coordination; they do not conduct foreign intelligence gathering or counterintelligence investigations. The rules for joint activities and information-sharing are generally spelled out in formal agreements between the United States and the Legat's host country. The entire worldwide Legat program is overseen by a Special Agent in Charge located at FBI Headquarters.

Desk Jockey

08-12-2007, 12:43 AM

Depends on what you mean by "operate". They "operate" at Langley and elsewhere, so clearly they aren't banned from the US.

They cannot investigate, surveil or arrest on US soil (FBI and other LEOs handle that). Which pretty much covers the CIAs general activities.

The CIA monitors a bad guy coming into the US, they call the FBI, who have the resources to handle it (often passing it to local agencies, like the NYPD).

Remember that the I in CIA stands for Intelligence. Not shooting or bombing, although a small amount of operations end that way (Predators, etc). It's not like 24.

Not to mention, the FBI guards it's turf (Domestic CI) like nothing you've ever seen.

That is what I thought, cheers mate,

and the JTTF of the FBI retains a number of former cops especially nypd intelligence officers to as contractors to do allot of the surveilance work, correct?

HR24

08-12-2007, 12:46 AM

well if they ever stepped up the war on drugs and decided to go after the country itself for the distribution of its product into America that could be one way of dealing with it...

DEA, ICE and the FBI can only operate so far outside of this countries borders. There are agents detailed throughout the world in source countries, whether it be Colombia, Afghanistan, Peru, Panama, etc., assisting the countries respective drug agencies. We can give them all of the info in the world off of a Title III, Pen/T&T regarding DTO's operating within that countries borders that is flooding the US with cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, but the local agencies are the ones that have to act on the info. We can't. Sure, we can indict them from here, but is the country the bad guy is in gonna extradite him for us? Maybe, but that is a big maybe. Really depends on the country you are dealing with.

Desk Jockey

08-12-2007, 12:47 AM

DEA has its' fill of cowboys,so don't sh1t yourself:running around Central and South American countries with their navy blue windbreakers and ball caps emblazoned with 'DEA' on them and acting arrogant as fu_ck;hopefully they've learned a thing or two about how to go about conducting themselves out in the general populace...

examples, you work with these cats, or have seen this behavior. Just like to know how you formed your opinion. It is pretty harsh.

HR24

08-12-2007, 12:51 AM

Not to mention, the FBI guards it's turf (Domestic CI) like nothing you've ever seen.

Not to mention the fact that they love taking on more turf. Little known fact-the FBI has Title 8 authority to investigate immigration violations. They lobbied hard for that one, then, when they got it, they realized what a gorilla it was and you never hear of the FBI doing worksite enforcement operations or arresting a guy for 8 USC 1326 violations (that is, unless they can't make any of their other charges stick). :)

helomech

08-12-2007, 12:56 AM

examples, you work with these cats, or have seen this behavior. Just like toi know how you formed your opinion. It is pretty harsh.

I've seen this behaviour in my past travels,embarrassing when locals know you're an American and they form an opinion that ALL Americans must act like they(DEA monkeys) do..

HR24

08-12-2007, 12:59 AM

DEA has its' fill of cowboys,so don't sh1t yourself:running around Central and South American countries with their navy blue windbreakers and ball caps emblazoned with 'DEA' on them and acting arrogant as fu_ck;hopefully they've learned a thing or two about how to go about conducting themselves out in the general populace...

Oh, don't worry, I don't. Every agency has its share of "studs". But I'm not gonna condemn the other agents at that agency for the dipsh*t actions of others. South of the border would be the last place I would want to throw on a raid jacket in public.

Desk Jockey

08-12-2007, 01:21 AM

I've seen this behaviour in my past travels,embarrassing when locals know you're an American and they form an opinion that ALL Americans must act like they(DEA monkeys) do..

I have lived and spent considerable time in contries with a heavy DEA footprint and have never even seen a group of dude with DEA windbreakers.

In a fact in Uzbekistan once I came across some FLEO American types who were trying to go as indig as possible. I would never have known if I had not caught a blatant Southie accent among the crew.

Won't get peronal dude, but the DEA (monkeys) you believe that really man, sure there are the asshats, but it must take balls to some of what these cats do, especially as HR24 said, South of the Border.

Again dude,not calling you out, just kinda strange painiting an agency that you may or not work with or had signifigant contact with.

No Biggie.

@HR24 your insight in this thread has been an education, thanks.

nagant_m44

08-12-2007, 01:28 AM

Yeah dude but are they serching for NBC weapons DOE NEST team capabilities, doing drug interdiction, leading kidnapping investigations, weapon enforcement. tracking foreign bad guys / spies, securing the borders, protecting the president/ VIPs, financial fraud, enforcing the tax code, domestic hostage recscue / barricade suspect situations, manning the entry ports?

Their tasking sems to be defined, and the lack of other agencies seems unrealistic.

why not just make all other federal law enforcement agencies part of the US marshals?

helomech

08-12-2007, 01:30 AM

I have lived and spent considerable time in contries with a heavy DEA footprint and have never even seen a group of dude with DEA windbreakers.

In a fact in Uzbekistan once I came across some FLEO American types who were trying to go as indig as possible. I would never have known if I had not caught a blatant Southie accent among the crew.

Won't get peronal dude, but the DEA (monkeys) you believe that really man, sure there are the asshats, but it must take balls to some of what these cats do, especially as HR24 said, South of the Border.

Again dude,not calling you out, just kinda strange painiting an agency that you may or not work with or had signifigant contact with.

No Biggie.

@HR24 your insight in this thread has been an education, thanks.

*Heavy sigh*...Last post of the night,because it's lights' out for me;the whole windbreaker thing was at the height of the Drug War in Central/South America-1993-1997 timeframe;sure,in Uzbek-land they may have tried to look indig,but I'm not sure they could have pulled that off yet they may learned a thing or two from the previous decade of dealing with the narco-trafficantes of the Americas'

Desk Jockey

08-12-2007, 01:37 AM

*Heavy sigh*...Last post of the night,because it's lights' out for me;the whole windbreaker thing was at the height of the Drug War in Central/South America-1993-1997 timeframe;sure,in Uzbek-land they may have tried to look indig,but I'm not sure they could have pulled that off yet they may learned a thing or two from the previous decade of dealing with the narco-trafficantes of the Americas'

Heavy sigh, all you had to do was qualify, I was just asking a question, sweet dreams.:)

Laconian

08-12-2007, 08:36 AM

why not just make all other federal law enforcement agencies part of the US marshals?

Partly, because the Marshals have a series of their own problems: Each Federal district court (i.e. Southern District of FL, Eastern District of NY, District of NJ, etc.) has a US Marshal appointed by the President. This subject is not LE, but a political appointee. The Chief Deputy is usually from w/i the USMS. This can lead to a lot of turmoil, especially when every 4-8 years, there's a new Marshal in town. Journeyman DUSM (deputy US Marshal) are only GS12, almost every other Fed investigator journeyman is a GS13. All DUSMs are not 1811 (Crim investigators), some are but some are coded 083 (DUSM) in the Fed job system. (This takes NOTHING away from the DUSMs I have worked with - they have been jam-up sheepdogs - once they are on your trail you're done. What I know about the workings of the USMS come from these folks...I would do a door w/them anytime.)

Second, there is too much specialty in Fed LE to train that many folks in that many statutes. If we abolished all other Fed LE & just left the USMS to do it they would have to train their folks in crim work such as: crimes involving the mail (200 statutes alone), wire fraud, bank fraud, fraud against the govt., customs laws, immigration laws, narcotics laws, alcohol and tobacco diversion, explosives and arson (and the technical aspects of those as well), firearms violations, tax violations (in which many other areas are also covered, e.g. NFA, etc.), bank robbery, public corruption, RICO, all types of organized crime (street gangs, OMGs, all of the various "mafias"), cyber-crime, counterfeit currency, interstate theft, regulation of industry, FCI, CTO, running the prisons, Fed probation. Those are just off the top of my head and DON'T include the work by the various 1811s working for the statutorily-mandated Inspector Generals for each Department in the Executive Branch conducting waste, fraud and abuse investigations within their own departments.

None of these Secretaries of the various Departments are going to give-up control of their operations to a newly redesigned USMS. There is too much money, too much power, too much work for it all to be under one roof. You think the FBI is a problem now? The one you are suggesting would be 1000x worse. It would be decades before it got squared away, if it ever did.

There has always been talk of simplify Fed LE. Back in the day all Treasury Department were going to be consolidated (ATF, IRS, Customs, Secret Service, TIGTA) but it was found to be way too cumbersome. The various rumors the ATF would merge with DEA, Customs would merge with DEA, FBI would take over DEA, etc. (never saw the INS/Customs merge coming, though), never pan out. The big reorg that spawned DHS, is a goat rope and everybody knows it. But it is probably here to stay.

Desk Jockey

08-12-2007, 10:10 AM

Any worry of DOD encroaching on the FBI,

In the case of a potential Radiological attack does DOE became lead agency with the NEST teams being activated ( if they are not always already) and under certain section of the U.S.C. doesn't a certain DOD SMU become authorized to I guess do the takedown instead of say HRT if it could be a nuke.

Also NBC in general,

Existing laws, including Title 10, Chapter 15 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sup_01_10_10_A_20_I_30_15.html) (commonly known as The Insurrection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Insurrection_Act)), and The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Stafford_Disaster_Relief_and_Emergency_Assistance_Act) (Title 42, Chapter 68 (http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm)), grant the President broad powers that may be invoked in the event of domestic emergencies, including an attack against the Nation using weapons of mass destruction, and these laws specifically authorize the President to use the Armed Forces to help restore public order.

So if there is a NBC attack POTUS can tell the FBI or if my NEST point is accuarate the DOE to take a back seat to DOD.

Do the feds every worry POTUS will take this a step further and grant it that DOD have authority to take over in the case of any terrorist attack, or anticipated one on US soil? Even Investigations?

In early 2006, the 109th Congress passed a controversial bill which grants the President the right to commandeer Federal or even State National Guard Troops and use them inside the United States. This bill, entitled the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122.ENR), contains a provision, (Section 1076) which allows the President to:

“...employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to...
restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States..., where the President determines that,...domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy...”

[3] Senator Patrick Leahy and others have condemned Section 1076 because it effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. 331-335) and gives the President the legal ability to define under what conditions martial law may be declared. [4]

Don't want to open a can of worms but is CAG being at WACO was that an invention of the tinfoil hat brigade?

Laconian

08-12-2007, 11:13 AM

Don't want to open a can of worms but is CAG being at WACO was that an invention of the tinfoil hat brigade?

Yes. Affirmative. 10-roger-4

Violet Fashion by Mindy

08-12-2007, 11:14 AM

It really amazes me how many branches of law enforcement the US as.

Local PD's
County
State
Federal

Then the US Marshall Service, DEA, CIA, ATF (have I missed any?)

Now the sheer size of the public service to run these layers is massive. For instance why does the ATF and DEA have to be separate from the FBI?

You could save billions by consolidating the branches where overlap exists. Why have local, county and state police which all have their own administration when you could have the one state service? Likewise with the FBI/DEA/ATF/US Marshalls.

Is it any wonder the US governments budgets are screwed?

MichaelF

08-12-2007, 11:21 AM

Posse Comitatus is dead anytime the President decides to use his Constitutionally-mandated Executive Authority to quell domestic violence and/or lawlessness (see: Insurrection Act).

This happened in 1992, during the LA Riots. Again, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (as law and order had broken down in vic NOLA).

The act was recently (2006) modified to expand the POTUS's options. Now he can deploy troops against those obstructing the enforcement of the Law.

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

The main reason that Guard troops are usually the main force involved, is that they are usually geographically situated to respond quickly. Also, the gap in quality between Guard and Regular units no longer really exists, with most Guard units being just as good (sometimes better) than their Regular counterparts.

However, if the POTUS does not have confidence in the Guard (it's been suborned or a disaster has disrupted the local CoC, or the magnitude of the event is too great for the local units to handle)......in go the Regulars.

snoddy

08-12-2007, 12:29 PM

MichaelF

08-12-2007, 01:36 PM

i thought the Guard could always be called in to handle domestic violence like the LA riots or Katrina looting?

Oh, it can, and usually does.

Understand, though, that past a certain point, a single State's Guard force can only stretch so far, even States with Division-sized elements (Texas, California). Florida only has ~10K Guard personnel, to oversee a State of 18,000,000 people.

Sometimes the main maneuver elements (BCTs) are deployed, leaving mostly CS/CSS troops behind to keep the homefires burning.

Katrina and the LA Riots are examples of situations that rapidly exceeded the capacity of the local units.

Now imagine a 10.0 Earthquake that disrupted the California Guard's CoC. Or a full-scale gang war (aka Civil Insurrection). Or Miami getting hit by a Cat 4 Hurricane (like NOLA, but worse). Or Mexican drug gangs trying to take control of Texas border towns.

Lastly, in cases where Nuclear or Radiological weapons are involved, the Attorney General has the option of turning the whole situation over to DoD.

snoddy

08-12-2007, 01:47 PM

so is the FBI even around along the mexican border? just from all the posts here, one would think it would be a hotspot for all LEA's? why do we leave it upto just a few to handle it?

MichaelF

08-12-2007, 02:55 PM

The FBI would be involved in all investigations that overlap with their portfolio.

JJC

08-12-2007, 03:03 PM

so is the FBI even around along the mexican border? just from all the posts here, one would think it would be a hotspot for all LEA's? why do we leave it upto just a few to handle it?

Yes, they are represented at E.P.I.C.- El Paso Intelligence Center, houses representatives from many fed agencies.

HR24

08-12-2007, 10:55 PM

so is the FBI even around along the mexican border? just from all the posts here, one would think it would be a hotspot for all LEA's? why do we leave it upto just a few to handle it?

10-4. Like JJC said, they are at EPIC as well as the standard RA and SAC (or do they still say SAIC) offices in that region. IMHO, the best dope agents from all agencies are border rats. The sheer of volume work is just staggering. Not saying interior offices are less busy, but the SW border is jumping. I'm still amazed by every now and then 2,000lb loads of marijuana here, and down there, they are looking at upwards of 7,000lbs a load. I'm not even gonna go into the cocaine loads. Just go to the NDIC website and look at the prices of the various narcotics in a place like Laredo or Calexico and then look at it in comparison to an interior city. Makes you shake your head.

HR24

08-12-2007, 10:57 PM

i do know that in some states the guard does help with counter drug op's.

They've offered their helos to us for aerial surveillance. I'm dying to get a chance to use them on something.

JJC

08-12-2007, 11:05 PM

Did the NDIC replace ONDCP? I remember my crimonology professor talk about ONDCP as if it was worse than Colombian cartels.

Desk Jockey

08-13-2007, 05:56 AM

Lastly, in cases where Nuclear or Radiological weapons are involved, the Attorney General has the option of turning the whole situation over to DoD.

That is what I though, thanks for all of your insight.

HR24

08-13-2007, 08:56 AM

Did the NDIC replace ONDCP? I remember my crimonology professor talk about ONDCP as if it was worse than Colombian cartels.

Two seperate entities. ONDCP is a component of the Executive Office, while NDIC is tied underneath DOJ as an intel source. Not sure what your professor was on about there.

alex kendall

08-14-2007, 03:55 PM

Thanku But That Reply Had Absolutely Nothing 2 Do W/ What I Posted...