Terrorism in the USA:threat & response

[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.

[Ken White]

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.

True on the last. On the first I'd agree that they are law driven but do not agree they're lawyer driven -- there is, to my mind a difference -- to the extent we happen to be. Our extremely litigious society breeds (nowadays and among the kids... ) lawyers who are IMO excessively cautious in order to avoid suits or potential liability in any form. They and other factors cause our law enforcement folks to be excessively cautious. Excessive caution in pursuit of truly bad (as opposed to mildly criminal) guys is not at all helpful.

I'd also submit most European and virtually all Asian agencies involved have and take more latitude in treatment of suspects and in not apprehending at the first scent of a crime.

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.

Agreed; tougher but also rather different with respect to the 'rights of the accused.'

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.

As long as you realize it is not dual track in several senses of 'not' -- and that DoD (and the CIA; NSA also to an extent...) cannot and should not do anything domestically.

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

Interesting lad. I suspect he was sharp enough and flexible enough to figure out a way of operating under today's constraints (with none of which I disagree; merely noting that they exist).

[jmm99]

from Ken
They and other factors cause our law enforcement folks to be excessively cautious.

That depends on the jurisdiction - dependent on how much prosecutorial and official immunity is given by law; and how judges apply that law. Reasoned discourse would require stats on civil actions brought vs prosecutors & cops, how many are successful, how prosecutions were affected by the suits, etc. I don't have stats at hand for that. If you do, present your evidence. You know I'll listen.

from Ken
I'd also submit most European and virtually all Asian agencies involved have and take more latitude in treatment of suspects and in not apprehending at the first scent of a crime.
.....
Agreed; tougher but also rather different with respect to the 'rights of the accused.'

Different systems from US (except in UK), based on judicial investigations akin to one-person grand juries with broad inquisitional powers. Also, generally in their criminal law, there is less emphasis on defects in procedure and presenting evidence - and much more emphasis on the degree of the crime and the term of punishment. Which is one reason which probably lies behind the decision to shift investigation and initial processing to foreign countries. Once a case is established in the foreign country, the FBI-DoJ can accept delivery, etc.

UK is similar to US. The differences favor / unfavor perps are probably a push; except that the UK has more EU conventions, etc. that they take seriously - and I think, make the job tougher as to terrs. David has the final call on UK issues.

from Ken
As long as you realize it is not dual track in several senses of 'not' -- and that DoD (and the CIA; NSA also to an extent...) cannot and should not do anything domestically.

My chart and explanation covers this to some extent - and the restrictions (and exceptions - "anything" is too broad under existing law, conservatively applied) to various agencies' charters re: domestic activities - has been covered in War Crimes and elsewhere. Anyway, they are well known to me and within my realization.

Hey, Subotai was a taiga forest boy. I can relate to that.

[Ken White]

I don't have stats at hand for that. If you do, present your evidence. You know I'll listen.

Nor do I have stats -- do have two sons who are Cops, two relatives who are prosecutors and one who's a judge. All the legal types have traveled in Europe far more extensively than have I and one lived in France for three years not long ago. My comment is based partly on their experiences related to me and partly on what I read. It's also based partly on long expereicne with the US government and watching that government and its application of legal advice change over the last 30 plus years. I'm comfortable that my comments are reasonably accurate and am entirely too lazy to dig up Stats to validate an opinion.

...Once a case is established in the foreign country, the FBI-DoJ can accept delivery, etc.

All true but not relevant to my point that the European law enforcement approach and ours differ as you acknowledge and they essentially do a better job than we do, not least IMO due to the fact that US giovernmental elements of all types get overly cautious to avoid blame / responsibilty / bad publicity and that the threat of liability is often used as a justification by LE agencies for not doing things -- that in self defense on their part, not as a responsibility evader...

David has the final call on UK issues.[

Who's calling what? I stated an opinion -- does he have a call on my opinion?

Who knew...

Nor does any of that address my principal point -- that the Police have restraints --as they should -- on actions they can take which means they are not the best agency to do counterespionage and/or counter terror work. Since I'm not god and offer no links, that's probably an opinion on my part. Others can differ and that should be acceptable; it certainly is okay with me if others do not agree.

...Anyway, they are well known to me and within my realization.

Well, good, then you knew all along that DoD doesn't do domestic counter terror so I didn't need to say that. I wonder why I did?

Hey, Subotai was a taiga forest boy. I can relate to that.

Certainement. You two should get along swimmingly. In August, for two weeks -- too cold the rest of the year...

[goesh]

I'm all for sending them into the Paki frontier region to so some interviewing and questioning - shiny black shoes on goat trails backed by the rule of Law, peace shall soon prevail... the Feds had to break the Law to nail the KKK during the Civil Rights upheaval here at home so I wish them all the best in 3rd world environments. When Joe Terrorist lawyers up, what are they going to do, waterboard him? Threaten to send him to Syria to have his testicles put in a garlic crusher?

[Boondoggle]

Monograph on Information Sharing prepared for the 9/11 Commission is released:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf

Legal Barriers to Information Sharing:
The Erection of a Wall Between Intelligence and Law Enforcement Investigations
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Staff Monograph
Barbara A. Grewe
Senior Counsel for Special Projects
August 20, 2004

And if you want to skip to the end....

It is clear, therefore, that the information sharing failures in the summer of2001 were not the result of legal barriers but of the 'failure of individuals to understand that the barriers did not apply to the facts at hand. Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared.

[jmm99]

I will have to read this (previously "Secret") memo with some care.

I kid Ken about his emphasis on training, training, training .... But, here we seem to have another example (based on the bottom line you quoted) of an education and training failure - in the civilian sector.

This memo may remind us that spin (and I recall a lot of spin from both sides of the spectrum on these issues) is often - almost always ? - dead wrong.

Since you're the catcher here, why don't you do the blow by blow legal analysis ?