Terrorism in the USA:threat & response

[bourbon]

Legal attaches work out of the embassy and are part of the country team. In this diplomatic environment I imagine the State Department tries to keep them on a short leash and in line.

I don’t know how useful this is going to be if more agents are assigned to the semi-isolation of the embassy. NYPD liaison officers work from a desk provided by the host law enforcement agency. The responsibilities between FBI legal attaches and NYPD liaison officers are of course different; the NYPD doing strictly CT, and the legatts having more areas to cover. If this is strictly CT the FBI should do more like the NYPD has done.

[bourbon]

Counterterrorism: A Role for the FBI, Not the CIA, by Robert Baer. Time Online, June 03, 2009.

And that, despite what some CIA loyalists might reflexively think, would be great news for the agency. In fact, if I were Panetta, I would neatly gift wrap counterterrorism, put a bow on the top, and hand it over to FBI Director Robert Mueller. It can't be any clearer that renditions, harsh interrogations (if not torture) and secret prisons have been a catastrophe for the CIA, promising to tie it up legally for years to come, not to mention completely overshadow its successes. With the torture scandal sucking up all the oxygen, who today remembers that it was the CIA in the months before 9/11 that was jumping up and down on the table warning that bin Laden was about to attack us?

[Boondoggle]

Counterterrorism: A Role for the FBI, Not the CIA, by Robert Baer. Time Online, June 03, 2009.

I saw Baer speak at a small gathering about a month ago. This is right in line with what he said. Actually, he even went further arguing that the CIA should get completely out of their direct action business and hand it completely over to the DoD.

In my personal opinion, I don't agree. While it should be exceptionally rare, there are things that uniformed soldiers should not be doing. When someone wears a US uniform, that should conotate a great many things, including the fact they are acting (more or less) within the GC in their conduct. Another reason Abu Ghraib was such a.... boondoggle.

But I disagree with him here. He should know better. The FBI, as a law enforcement agency, is culturally interested in what did happen, and sheparding a case through trial. The CIA is culturally interested in what might happen. They can conflict, especially when the target has tactical intelligence that can help on the battlefield or in preventing a terrorist attack. While I think it's great when you can do both, its not always possible, at some point whether you are focusing on a trial, or on maximizing intel for troops/agents in the field, you've got to prioritize one over the other.

[jmm99]

will regularize CIA involvement in the detainment process - in essence, X-ing out the CIA boxes in this chart. That will not affect or solve the DoD detainment process in row 3 - also discussed here.

It also does not address the issue of CIA direct action missions (although those generally will not end up with detainees).

[Ken White]

well at it themselves. The FBI should do cop things, the CIA should do intelligence collection and analysis stuff -- and two new agencies should have been created. One to do the counterspy / counter terror thing for and another for overseas direct action. None of those four things mix well with the others and you badly taint the ability and reputation of any one when you connect it with things it should not be doing.

Spy or Terr catching is dirty work and requires watching and waiting too often; Cops are intrinsically unable to do those two things. Anyone notice that most all the FBI terrorism related convictions entail a sting operation and the alleged perps are blithering idiots?

Using the CIA for DA exposes case officers to retaliation for things not their fault. It upsets the equilibrium and it causes dissension within the agency. The DA mission requires doers, the intel mission require thinkers. Yes, you can find people that can do both -- but not often. The CIA does not have a good record of catching its own spies, much less those from other places. Not their yob...

Unfortunately, given post Nixon, post Church Commission, post Carter and post 9/11 chances to better organize our assets; we instead continued to to bobble the punt. In the last case, we elected to create two massive bureaucracies to oversee the other Bureaucracies and changed nothing for the better. Sheesh.

[davidbfpo]

Spy or Terr catching is dirty work and requires watching and waiting too often; Cops are intrinsically unable to do those two things.

Ken,

I fully accept terrorist catching is dirty work etc, but profoundly disagree that 'Cops are instrinsically unable to do these things'. Or do you mean only in the USA?

Before the 'new age of terrorism' there were many examples where CT campaigns succeeded, for example one booklet cited Italy, Germany, France and Spain. In all of them the police were the main player IMHO.

Leaving prevention aside for now, a lot depends on whether your strategy involves criminalisation and so the need for evidence to present in court.

davidbfpo

[Ken White]

I fully accept terrorist catching is dirty work etc, but profoundly disagree that 'Cops are instrinsically unable to do these things'. Or do you mean only in the USA?

Yes.

Leaving prevention aside for now, a lot depends on whether your strategy involves criminalisation and so the need for evidence to present in court.

That's why.

No question MI5 and most european agencies do a good to great job -- but they are not driven (too often) by hordes of lawyers...

My point was that generally -- and specifically here in the US -- the idea of getting the evil one to court overrides the ability to let the case or activity build to get other than the sardines in the net. The Police are hard wired to protect -- and that's good. They also are opposed (one would hope) to breaking the law. Both those factors can intrude if not interfere with catching bad guys who deliberately use your laws against you. I also suspect that there are occasional differences between the CI and Special Branch elements in your police services on those issues.

I'll again note that most 'successful' FBI counter terrorist efforts that have been publicized are sting ops and the miscreants seem to be short a few cards.

[jmm99]

from Ken
... but they are not driven (too often) by hordes of lawyers ...

The Euro-centric approach to terrs (violent non-state actors) is very much driven by law-lawyers (whether in hordes[*] is perceptional) - e.g., the Eminent Jurists Report and a number of UK policy papers cited by David in War Crimes. The approach is purely a law enforcement and intelligence approach.

Possibly, that has made some Euro agencies more keen on developing the facts before events go down - and sharpening both intelligence and counter-intelligence skills - because of what in effect are tougher legal standards.

Personally, I would not give up our dual track system (FBI-DoJ and DoD; and perhaps some more alphabet soup for special missions); but one has to realize they are separate tracks - different rules and cultures.

---------------------
[*] Speaking of hordes, picked up a book on Subotai - haven't had a chance to read it yet.