IP: Hard Questions for Terror Fight

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

I serve on the Task Force djf
------ Forwarded Message
From: "Verhulst, Stefaan" <sverhulst () hotmail com>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:12:41 -0400
To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: Hard Questions for Terror Fight


http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpbai302725217may30.story

Newsday

May 30, 2002

Hard Questions For Terror Fight

By Zoë Baird; Zoë Baird is president of the Markle Foundation and co-chairs
a private Task Force on National Security in the Information Age

The crucial lesson to be drawn from recent headlines about what our
government knew before Sept. 11 is that the United States needs a domestic
intelligence capability.

Unlike some allies, America's intelligence agencies are not licensed to
operate within our borders. And the FBI has functioned domestically as a
law-enforcement agency, gathering information to prosecute crimes.

Now, Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have
announced a major change in the way the FBI does business: assigning
hundreds of agents to preventive intelligence gathering. The FBI is saying
that it will be America's domestic intelligence agency, a move that
represents a radical change in the Justice Department's mission and raises
issues that require serious debate. It is clear from reading the critical
memo to Mueller from the agency's chief lawyer in Minneapolis, Coleen
Rowley, that the FBI has applied law enforcement standards to problems that
instead may have required intelligence methods. For example, she and
officials at FBI headquarters disagreed over whether there was adequate
"evidence of terrorist activity" to justify a search warrant as part of a
law enforcement investigation.

But such investigations are only one means of preventing terrorism. A
broader intelligence approach might have allowed us to benefit from the
identification of Zacarias Moussaoui even if the standards for a search
warrant weren't met.

But the questions we need to be asking in light of the proposed FBI
reorganization are not merely about whether such a move will address the
bureau's shortcomings as outlined in Rowley's memo. Rather, we need to raise
more fundamental questions about the basic information-gathering approach
and about which institutions of government should have domestic
responsibilities to prevent terrorist attacks.

In a land of freedoms, can we do this without intruding on civil liberties?
I think we can, with a carefully constructed set of governmental
responsibilities and limitations on the uses of information.

A related issue is that we have not established the capability to fuse
domestic and foreign intelligence. That is, we have not yet charged any
government agency to collect and analyze both domestic and foreign
information within a legal framework relevant to our times. We need to
quickly figure out how to organize an institution to do this in a manner
that fully preserves the liberties that make this country worth securing.

The solution demands serious discussion of questions that include:

The FBI has said it will reorganize as a domestic intelligence agency, but
is it in society's best interests to house our domestic intelligence
capability there? The FBI does not currently undertake domestic
intelligence. (As Mueller said before the Senate Judiciary Committee May 8,
the bureau has been looking back to prosecute crimes, not forward to prevent
them.) Additionally, the FBI doesn't have the collection or analytic
capability for domestic intelligence.

Furthermore, we need to seriously evaluate whether we want to augment the
FBI's powers since it is charged with more than advising policy makers, as
do the intelligence agencies. The FBI is charged with using its power to
deprive the accused of their liberty through prosecution. On the other hand,
the FBI does have the most experience with living within legal restraints.
Bottom line: Do we want the FBI to build this capability or should a
different agency be assigned to collect and analyze information from other
agencies?

Is the line at the border restraining the CIA and other U.S. intelligence
agencies from operating within the United States valid in the post-Cold War
world? This certainly protects Americans from government scrutiny, but if we
are going to develop that scrutiny anyway, are there certain kinds of
activities our foreign intelligence agencies could be better suited than the
FBI to perform at home? For example, should it be charged to analyze
domestic information in light of foreign information, within new legal
constraints?

Increasingly, government depends on information in the private sector.
Should this information be made available to government, and if so, under
what circumstances and with what restraints? This may be of particular
concern to Americans and their expectation of privacy. And how can the
government gain an edge on terrorists by taking advantage of the rapid
advances in information collection and management in the private sector -
again, without compromising the liberties fundamental to our society?

The answers to these questions will require abandoning long-held turf. I was
a member of a commission established by Congress in 1996, where we called
for terrorism to be treated as a national security matter rather than a law
enforcement problem. We exposed the problem that the intelligence community
was not assigned to prevent attacks at home, and the FBI did not collect
preventive intelligence. Therefore major changes were needed to share
information and develop effective strategies to prevent terrorism.

We presented our recommendations in a meeting with President Bill Clinton,
they were adopted, and a committee of the National Security Council was set
up. But what changed? Little. We all failed - including myself as a member
of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board - to make sure that
fundamental governmental behavior changed.

What we need now is a vibrant debate in Congress and the executive branch
about how best to create the capabilities that we clearly know we need.
Members of Congress who understand law enforcement need to learn about the
intelligence community, and vice versa. Most importantly, information must
be shared to help us see the full picture.

We need to consider these tough questions, and the answers won't be simple
or popular. But, with a thoughtful approach that clearly addresses the
responsibilities of each government agency, we can enhance our security
substantially without upsetting the balance that has so long preserved our
liberties.




------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/