Terrorism in the USA:threat & response

[bourbon]

FBI planning a bigger role in terrorism fight, by Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2009.

The FBI and Justice Department are significantly expanding their role in global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and interrogations with one built around transparent investigations and prosecutions.

Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been quietly in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will question suspects and gather evidence to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

[davidbfpo]

FBI planning a bigger role in terrorism fight, by Josh Meyer. Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2009.

I assume in some places the host nation allows the FBI to interview suspects, many others would recoil at such a practice as I would. Are FBI methods compatible with host nation laws and procedures, for example audio-visual recording throughout? Same applies to gathering evidence. Another website refers to the Italians seeking a CIA kidnap team.

Liasion is very different and usually is not "hands on".

davidbfpo

[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