CIA Vs CIA

Intelligence sharing was one of the biggest obstacles the nation had prior to the 9/11 attacks. Federal agencies, competing for budgetary funding, had no incentive to share any information they collected with their

The “need to know” system is an outdated and inefficient way of sharing information, both within a single agency and when it comes to interagency cooperation. The “need to share” system is a much more logical way to go about disseminating intelligence of all variations. The “need to share” system theoretically mandates the interagency sharing of information that is pertinent to national security , and operational success, thus paving the way for much more efficient operations between the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. If I were in charge of the DHS I would put into effect a long term interagency liaison program, that would be aimed at the sharing

I remember prior to 911 just how insulated the FBI was and its institutional reluctance to disseminate information to outside agencies. Even more so, was the internal separation between the FBI's criminal branches and its terrorism branches. It wasn't just because of institutional values, it was, in some cases, a matter of law. To me, this couldn't be more apparent than with my organizations tenuous relationship with the CIA. Again, there were statutory prohibitions, as well as, insular perceptions which prevented some inter-agency cooperation. Some of these prohibitions can be attributed to historical context, specifically the radical misuse of our government's investigative assets during the sixties to target civil rights groups and

Understanding the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) priorities are necessary to recommend any initiatives that will have the most value to the intelligence community (IC). The DNI fully identifies to the IC what his mission, vision, and goals are. The DNI uses the National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) to explain the objectives and the priorities for the IC. There are a few areas, which if made a priority would have a beneficial impact on the IC. These recommendations would not require a lot of resources. They include adapting one overall IC vision, enhancing current agency-to-agency communication, and furthering foreign relations within the IC.

FBI employees differ tremendously from all law enforcement agencies. Being one of the two higher supremacy agencies for the government, they contain different abilities of power. The CIA, which is stood for Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI are both associates of the U.S. Intelligence Community, but contrast impressively (FBI). The CIA has no law enforcement function: “Rather, it collects and analyzes information that is vital to the formation of U.S. policy, particularly in areas that impact the security of the nation (differencebetween.net)”. The CIA collects information only regarding foreign countries and their particular citizens, which could bring potential threats towards the U.S., while the FBI is a domestic enforcement agency,

The 9/11 commission report attributed some of the intelligence failures that allowed the terrorist attacks to the lack of information sharing among the Intelligence Community(IC). To understand what contributed to the erection of the wall between law enforcement and the IC, it is important to look at the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1995 and 1999 that significantly amended FISA. FISA wiretaps and searches often result in the acquisition of evidence of a crime. When a FISA wiretap or search reveals proof of a crime, the FBI may, under both Executive Order and the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, take rational steps to relay such evidence to the law enforcement for use in investigating and prosecuting the case as a criminal matter. However, there exist some controversies associated with that process. Under what circumstances an IC’s investigation can uphold information involving FISA wiretap as evidence of a crime? Many in the Intelligence Community believe that the government could not use FISA for investigation if the “primary purpose” of the investigation is for the criminal prosecution of a target suspected of terrorism or

The position of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) was created under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). The position of DNI replaced the Director of the Central Intelligence (DCI) as the senior intelligence official, head of the intelligence community’s 16 agencies, and principal intelligence advisor to the President of the United States (POTUS) and the National Security Council (NSC). The DNI has several duties and responsibilities, but for the subject of improving intelligence information sharing the focus will be directed towards: Improving Analytics, Improving Information Security, Improving Foreign Liaison Relationships, and the end state of Improving Information Sharing.

The United States national interests and national security policy have been subjected to numerous threats throughout history. The nature of these threats has changed the ways which the intelligence community (IC) supports national security policy. Tensions between intelligence analysts and policymakers have historically resulted in intelligence “failures.” As new threats emerge, national security policy identifies opportunities which the United States can act to combat these threats. The ability of the United States to effectively integrate intelligence into the policy process has often brought into question the role of intelligence analysts and their relationship with policymakers. Within this paper, I will explain both the “Kent” and “Gates” approach and discuss why intelligence analysts should align themselves more with the “Gates” approach through lessons learned throughout history.

This paper will analyze the different elements that compromise the intelligence communities (IC) from local law enforcement to national agencies and how each of those entities contributes to security intelligence. Secondly, this paper will evaluate the lessons learned from the attacks of 9/11. Lastly, the issues of domestic intelligence vs. foreign intelligence will be examined.

The current structure of the intelligence community is built around a process where each organization has their own lane, specialty or area of responsibility. Furthermore, they now communicate equilaterally as opposed to before 9/11 where the intelligence agencies did not collaborate with each other on a routine basis. Gathered intelligence was not shared across the intelligence community. Additionally, there are oversight agencies that provide protection and safety for U.S. citizens or anyone alike from being illegally prosecuted and collected upon. Today, under new reform, there are a total of 16 individual acting federal agencies and one overarching agency called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) (Washington Post,

Any slowdown in the operations due to structural reform can eliminate the competitive aspect between the agency, and negatively help to create errors, and not perfect, confirmed reports to the customers or decision makers. In the intelligence community and all the sixteen agencies and departments has a big ratio of private sector contractors, all these contractors can provide an enormous service to plan, collect, process, analyze, disseminate intelligence in the community. The private sector can provide services like confirm information, and structural support, nonetheless to mention the information technology, and direct support in tactical, operational, and strategic level missions. Redundancy in these cases can be working with the intelligence community to avoid intelligence failure in the future and enhance the process to predict any attacks. Sharing information, better communication, a structural enhancement will all add positive development to the intelligence community in redundancy issue. In the process of producing intelligence

After the September 11th terrorist attacks on U.S soil many gaps were identified in our domestic and international intelligence programs. An internal Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) investigation revealed that CIA Task Forces failed to share information with the FBI about two suspected terrorists, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States (9/11 Commission Report). The U.S Intelligence Community is made up of 15 different agencies, offices, and organizations within the Executive branch. There are 8 components in the Department of Defense, two in the department of Homeland Security, and one in each of the separate State, Energy, Treasury, and Justice departments, and one independent agency, the CIA (COICUS,

In 2004, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act which created the Office of the Director for National Intelligence (DNI) to oversee and coordinate all intelligence collection in order to advise Congress and the White House. The result of this reorganization, the director of the CIA no longer reports directly to the president.

Information might be hard to share with other agencies for many different reasons. One reason it might be hard is due to fact that before the terrorist attack at the Twin Towers on September 9, 2011 there was little to no communication between any of the agencies. This led to problems taking longer to be solved and by the time they are solved anther one already needed immediate attention and the cycle just continued to repeat. Intelligence is also hard to share with agencies. Even though Intelligence is mostly accurate that’s why it might harder to share because of time and also because of people trying to hack certain pages and trying to hack the government system .Most of all it might be hard for agencies to share information and intelligence due to trust. Trust is key in many situations because if there isn’t trust then there is nothing. If citizens don’t trust the government in their lives which many people don’t due to the many negative things that has had happened then it makes it harder on everyone. It makes it so that the government has trouble continuing to their job whatever that may be but it also causes the citizens to turn from the government and then there is no information and intelligences shared anywhere. Then that causes more problems because the disasters that are currently going on can’t be solved because there is no communication between agencies, this rotation will continue until the

Congress plays a unique role in the strategic intelligence processes being carried out on behalf of the government. The responsibility over the entire house members is therefore a huge one. The initial foundation of the strategic intelligence oversight process was laid down in such a way so as to ensure that it is well-functional in terms of its operations and is equally comparable in the level of standards attained by other essential governmental functions. However, the strategic intelligence process, over the years, has progressed towards a steady decline. That level of investment both in terms of cost and time is not being made at the present. Therefore, it is necessary to address the issue of what ought to be the proper role that Congress could play in the entire events of the strategic intelligence processes.