Intelligence Reform Bill

NousDefionsDoc · 11-22-2004, 19:45

So what's up with this thing?

11-22-2004, 20:19

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2004/09/s2845.html

Just my opinion, but I suspect Section 113 part H may conflict with some of the Pentagon's current plans. Probably why the rumour mill is ripe about Rumsfeld lobbying against it.

my .02

Gypsy · 11-22-2004, 20:40

An interesting commentary on this...

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/gbi.../gb_1122.shtml

Getting Intelligence Reform Right
By Gregg Bish
November 22, 2004

The Associated Press reported Sunday, November 21, "In a defeat for President Bush, rebellious House Republicans on Saturday derailed legislation to overhaul the nation's intelligence agencies along lines recommended by the September 11 commission." The vote wasn't a defeat for the president; it was a defeat for the Democrats. It was a Democratic campaign posture to demand that the House should adopt the Sept. 11 Commission report in its entirety. The Bush Administration has said from the beginning that they would review the entire report, and work with Congress to craft a "good bill". If anything, the defeat is in Nancy Pelosi's column, and doesn't mean much anyway. AP hasn't learned a thing about accurate reporting following the election.

The bill got snagged over concerns that it moved too much intelligence capability control away from the Pentagon, an issue from the beginning of the legislative process. Pentagon war planners are concerned that the loss of control will reduce their ability to identify threats and to protect their troops. One could support that, it's the troops that are in the front lines taking live fire every day. It's the opponents obsessed with having an "intelligence czar" that are in a froth.

This notion of an "intelligence czar" should be looked on with suspicion. Our friends in the Soviet Union used to have such an agency, called the KGB. It was notably one of the first organs of the Russian government to be reformed following the fall of the Soviet state. The Politburo couldn't control the KGB. The GRU couldn't control or challenge the KGB. It had become, over time, a force of nature that God himself couldn't control. The head of the KGB wielded more power in the Soviet Union, with greater discretion, than even the party leadership. In a nation concerned with terror and obsessed with worry, a desire to have a "politics-proof" intelligence organ might seem desirable, but the reality is that such an organ is dangerous. Power corrupts. Ultimate power corrupts, ultimately.

The concerns of dissenters in this process should be heard. Their worries should be given credence, and fairly reviewed. There should not be a headlong rush to craft a politically popular bill to fit the artificial constraints of a calendar. Rather, an appropriate amount of time should be spent to craft the best bill possible. This is, after all, the first major overhaul of our intelligence structures in a very long time. It is at least as important for this effort to be "right", as it is to deliver a bill before the changing Congress moves the power to shape it out of reach of the Democrats.

That is, after all, the concern driving the hoop-la.

With Republican gains in the House and Senate, the ability of the Democratic Party to influence the shape of this bill is diminished. The ability of the minority party to exercise the public to protect its interests is reduced. The drive to complete this bill now, before the freshman class is sworn, is based in politics, not in necessity.

Speaker Dennis Hastert and the Congressional leadership should take the time to do this "right". It can be hard, in Washington, to be an honest arbiter of the public good, but in this case, doing it "right" should, and may, take precedence over doing "what's popular". "Popular" doesn't protect the public. "Right" protects the public.

According to some news reports, the crafting of this legislation has taken a scant three months. By comparison, the president's proposed Energy Bill has been on the table for debate for three years. While Democrats criticized the administration for a "rush to war" in Iraq, it appears that they are willing to rush equally to push an intelligence bill through the legislature, whether it gets it "right", or not.

They just can't seem to get it right. Political posturing didn't win them an election. It didn't gain them power. It didn't advance their purposes. What possible gain do they hope to accomplish by rushing through a potentially flawed intelligence bill, other than to create a minefield of flaws to be used later against the Administration?

As important as this issue is, it deserves the time required for a second, and even a third, look.

NousDefionsDoc · 11-22-2004, 20:51

What I meant was what do you guys think?

I'm not suprised. Same thing happened last time they tried this.

11-22-2004, 21:25

Staying with open source information, I hope the bill never sees the light of day.

http://www.infowar-monitor.net/modul...rder=0&thold=0

The Pentagon is building its own Internet, the military's world wide web for the wars of the future.

The goal is to give all American commanders and troops a moving picture of all foreign enemies and threats - "a God's-eye view" of battle.

This "Internet in the sky," Peter Teets, under secretary of the Air Force, told Congress, would allow "marines in a Humvee, in a faraway land, in the middle of a rainstorm, to open up their laptops, request imagery" from a spy satellite, and "get it downloaded within seconds."

The Pentagon calls the secure network the Global Information Grid, or GIG. Conceived six years ago, its first connections were laid six weeks ago. It may take two decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to build the new war net and its components.......

CRad · 11-22-2004, 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

What I meant was what do you guys think?

Here's what i think - Parts of that intell bill, from what I saw, are wrong. Hunter has a good point. Sensenbrenner is a whack Job - immigration needs tightened but surely he realizes it was a bad plan to push for that on the same weekend Bush promised Vincente Fox he was for immigration reform that would allow more Mexicans to work in the US.

Hunter, on the other hand, has the right of it when he says the Pentagon needs to stay in charge of budget so they can provide up to the minute intel to the soldiers in the field. I know a few people who are doing some work on the WOT and one of the things they're pushing is better, quicker, and higher quality intel. If the Pentagon loses resources then so do soldiers. The power over budget is crucial to Special Ops. They are getting extra money for GWOT that is doing true good. If there's a centralized agency there will be so many competing interests that soldiers could come out on the dirty end of the stick.

While there is an argument for having a "big tent" so to speak that could guard against duplicate services that doesn't always happen the way it should nor is it always better. If it were then we'd see far more major cities have metro services as opposed to county and city services.

longrange1947 · 11-23-2004, 12:07

As far as immigration reform, it is not to let anyone come in and the borders made more porous, rahter to regulate the flow of immigrants and maintain some form of accountability for them. Right now the borders are wide open and that needs to be closed as soon as possible by whatever means.

Could care less how many immagrants come in to work, but illegal is illegal and they need to be sent back. With those are drug deales and terrorists slipping in and they are well armed. If it is true that the Mexican Army (bought and paid for by drug money) is involved then again I could careless if Fox's nose is out of joint or not. A hugh ambush would work well as far as I am concerned.

This should be fun.

NousDefionsDoc · 11-23-2004, 12:11

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...28_hero20.html

Quote:

Peralta, a Mexico native who lived in San Diego and gained U.S. citizenship after joining the Marines."

**Roguish Lawyer** · 11-23-2004, 12:21

Is the bill just adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of everything? Sure reads that way to me.

How about we eliminate all existing agencies, put all the resources in one new agency, and come up with a structure that works? Make everyone re-apply for jobs. Make the head cabinet level. Just a random thought . . .

CRad · 11-23-2004, 12:47

[QUOTE=

How about we eliminate all existing agencies, put all the resources in one new agency, and come up with a structure that works? Make everyone re-apply for jobs. Make the head cabinet level. Just a random thought . . .

[/QUOTE]

No. Control of resources is everything. Resources equaling money i.e. budget. If there is a unified office for intel then the military has to compete with the FBI, CIA, State Dept etc for funding on the GWOT.

Let the CIA and FBI justify themselves and request money to be appropriated at some future point. You can't do that with the military. They need to do their thing as it occurs. In order for that to happen they need dollars and control of dollars.

Maybe somebody smarter than me can explain this.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 11-23-2004, 13:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRad

No. Control of resources is everything. Resources equaling money i.e. budget. If there is a unified office for intel then the military has to compete with the FBI, CIA, State Dept etc for funding on the GWOT.

Let the CIA and FBI justify themselves and request money to be appropriated at some future point. You can't do that with the military. They need to do their thing as it occurs. In order for that to happen they need dollars and control of dollars.

Maybe somebody smarter than me can explain this.

You want it all under DOD?

**Roguish Lawyer** · 11-23-2004, 13:35

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...cia/index.html

Bush orders CIA paramilitary review
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 Posted: 11:55 AM EST (1655 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has ordered a 90-day review of the feasibility of the Pentagon taking over responsibility for paramilitary operations now conducted by the CIA, senior Pentagon and administration officials told CNN Tuesday.

The proposal was one of the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Several senior Pentagon officials said the move was unlikely to happen and that the review's sole purpose was to demonstrate that the Bush Administration is taking the commission recommendations seriously.

An administration official said Bush ordered the review last week and declined comment when asked about the likelihood of the transfer.

The official said the study would involve the offices of the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Defense Department and the State Department.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been unenthusiastic about making any change, as have several senior military officials.

CIA paramilitary operations are often some of the most covert, sensitive actions undertaken by the agency and can include so-called direct action, which may include attacks on specific targets.

CIA paramilitary forces were involved in the earliest stages of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and also have operated secretly inside Pakistan searching for Osama bin Laden, according to U.S. military officials.

CNN's Barbara Starr and Elaine Quijano contributed to this report.

**The Reaper** · 11-23-2004, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

You want it all under DOD?

IMHO, DOD Intelligence is more responsive to DOD users.

As I am sure Jimbo would say, raw intel is just data. Long term trend analysis which is valuable to the national decision makers is of somewhat less value to the guy in a TOC in Iraq getting ready to head out on a convoy in 15 minutes.

Military intelligence should extend from the strategic level down to the tactical. I do not see the national intelligence agencies focusing extensively at the operational much less the tactical level. They just don't have the resources (or the responsibility). Obviously, there should be some liaison, fusion, and sharing.

I have served at all levels from ODA through the Theater and Supporting CINCs. Information from the national level agencies is hard to come by at all levels, is usually dated, and closely held.

We can work HUMINT at the tactical level and usually provide significantly better real-time intel to the force than the national assets.

Just my .02 based on my experience.

TR

CRad · 11-23-2004, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...cia/index.html

Bush orders CIA paramilitary review
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 Posted: 11:55 AM EST (1655 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has ordered a 90-day review of the feasibility of the Pentagon taking over responsibility for paramilitary operations now conducted by the CIA, senior Pentagon and administration officials told CNN Tuesday.

The proposal was one of the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001, attacks.

.

This wouldn't break my heart. Some of these guys don't work well with our guys. If the Pentagon was in charge that might change.

Do I want the Pentagon to control the whole ball of wax? No. I don't want it to lose any of what it has already either.

I'm coming at this from only an SF point of view since I don't know anything else. However, I recall the early 80s when SF was not separately (or adequately) funded.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 11-23-2004, 14:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Obviously, there should be some liaison, fusion, and sharing.

This is the real issue, isn't it? How much and what kind?