How secure is the United States from domestic terrorists? Is there a perception in the US of zero-tolerance for terrorism attacks on U.S. soil? If so then, how much capital and freedom are American’s willing to finance and surrender for this ultra-low risk, high-cost insurance policy? The type of insurance policy that guarantees 100% protection against terrorism within our borders will be expensive both in terms of dollars and freedoms lost. As we move beyond the events of September 11, 2001, these questions continue to be asked at all levels of government as budgets shrink and civil libertarians balk at violations of their Fourth Amendment rights. What is the proper structure and span of control for federal, state and local law enforcement …show more content…
Additionally, would streamlining the sharing of this information both vertically and horizontally at the federal, state and local levels improve efficiencies, effectiveness, and operability? There are almost 50 agencies from the President down to the local level that have “fingers in the pie” so to speak in the domestic intelligence gathering community. This paper will examine the complexity and inherent barriers within the domestic intelligence community from the federal to the state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) levels, then analyze the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and what appears to be a lack of unity amongst the disparate organizations at both the federal and SLTT levels, and finally assess the levels of training and operational effectiveness to evaluate the overall performance efficiency of the intelligence community at the enterprise level. A way forward is also presented at the end of each section to provide suggested …show more content…
For example, the common theme from the state fusion center construct is once you have seen one fusion center organizational construct; you have seen one fusion center organizational construct. There is currently a network of 78 fusion centers across most states and large urban areas. All are set up and run differently by the state with DHS oversight and grant funding. Seventy-eight different constructs, operating procedures, and systems are not conducive to the local level intelligence community effectively delivery relevant information and inputs to the federal intelligence agencies. Business Executives for National Security (BENS) research shows that very few fusion centers are collocated with federal entities like the JTTF, FBI Field Intelligence Groups or Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). Many of these federal agencies and the fusion centers are located within the same cities so it does not make sense why they wouldn’t be collocated if efficiencies could be realized. Several IC agencies at the federal and SLTT levels have similar functions in terms of collecting information that could help law enforcement at all levels pursue criminals and potential terrorist threats. This would help eliminate artificial walls/boundaries; eliminate redundant/overlapping systems, improve collaboration; build relationships and trust which would stimulate more robust sharing.
Throughout its more than hundred year history, the Federal Bureau of Investigations has been a very important agency to the United States. As a threat-based and intelligence-driven national security organization, the mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership to federal, state, and international agencies (“A Brief History of the FBI”). The Bureau’s success has always depended on its agility, its willingness to adapt, and the ongoing dedication of its personnel. But in the years since
While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one, centralized agency, securing the homeland involves the cooperation and collaboration of many, different agencies and organizations ranging from local law enforcement to national agencies such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Each of these agencies contributes to the development of homeland security intelligence. By carefully analyzing and commenting on the objectives, tasks, strengths, weaknesses, and roles of each agency, a larger picture emerges regarding the capabilities and limitation of intelligence in supporting homeland security efforts.
“The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the federal United States Department of Homeland Security. Its stated mission is to secure the nation against terrorist attacks, to protect against and respond to threats and to ensure safe and secure borders” (Andrew, C., & Walter, F., 2013). “In addition to reducing the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism, the act was also created minimize the damage and facilitate recovery from any attacks that may occur” (Homeland Security, Department of, 2017). Many people want protection from dangerous situations, but what’s the cost of protection.
“How much freedom are Americans willing to give up for safety from terrorists?” We the people of the United States are willing to give away our natural born rights to be a safer nation. Millions of innocent lives were lost on 9-11-01. A problem not widely discussed in the United States much until September 11, 2001 the date of the attack from terrorist organizations on the world trade centers’ New York towers in New York City. The United States of America has not worried much about self-defense or in this case homeland security. Due to the actions on September 11th homeland security has been the main goal of many politicians and voters. Homeland security builds coalitions and partnerships, protects civil rights and civil liberties, and
The DNI has modestly more power than the old Directors of Central Intelligence (DCIs), but not enough to give the ODNI/AIS real clout. “Herding cats” remains a decent description of the ODNI’s basic role. 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.
Since 2010, integration has been the vanguard initiative of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). This initiative has been successful in several areas to include: the creation of National Intelligence Managers (NIM) for all primary geographic regions and functional areas; enhanced transparency; and the focus on the negative impacts of over classifying documents. However, not all efforts to integrate the intelligence community (IC) have been successful. For instance, the ODNI did not succeed at creating a comprehensive sharing environment, and has not fully integrated federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Although, these failed areas of integration can be mitigated in the future through the appropriate initiatives taken by the ODNI.
Fusion Center was established as the bridge between federal, state and local law enforcement. The need for information sharing among federal, state and local enforcement was established after September 11 attack. Fusion Centers " primary goals are maintaining situational awareness with the state and region, identifying and anticipating both criminal and non criminal threats, and facilitating interagency communication and coordination activities based on these assessment. The analysis and use of the information and intelligence lies at the heart of their activities or should enabling the organization to better define and achieve their varied goals"(Joyal, 2012). Fusion center plays a vital role in enabling effective communication of locally
Consolidation of the intelligence community under the DNI increases collaboration by inculcating a culture of “jointness”, similar to collaborative efforts by the military services following the Goldwater-Nichols reform. Second, establishment of the National Intelligence Coordination Center (NIC-C) provides DNI with a way to coordinate and focus collection efforts across the intelligence community. Lastly, The Library of National Intelligence provides a means for analysts across the intelligence community to gain access to additional sources.
Since the deadly terror attacks of 9/11, intelligence gathering for homeland security has improved immensely. One of the most important developments in our law-enforcement structure that has enhanced our intelligence is the creation of fusion centers. Fusion centers are “state and major urban area focal points for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between federal; state, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT); and private sector partners” (Department of Homeland Security, 2016). These fusion centers are "owned and operated by state and local entities" and are supported by federal partners in its many aspects which include personnel deployment, capacity building, and important and crucial connectivity to federal systems (Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), 2012, para. 3). For example, the DHS provides over 70 fusion centers access to the Homeland Secure Data Network or HSDN which allows these fusion centers to receive federally generated classified threat information.
State and local law enforcement should play a key role in homeland security intelligence because state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) law enforcement agencies are in a position where they can collect and analyze from a different perspective raw data that could be beneficial for the intelligence community (IC) at the state and federal level. Moreover, by giving law enforcement a proactive role in homeland security intelligence, it also enhances the capabilities and effectiveness of the IC because at a time when budgets are shrinking, it is very difficult for the IC to allocate sufficient resources at the state or local level (ODNI, 2016, p. 8). However, there are many barriers, such as operational, financial, and legal barriers, that
State wise, American citizens have rarely been concerned with foreign affairs of its own government. The number one dissatisfaction is the seemingly never-ending wars within the regions of the Middle East that have begun since the Bush administration. Yet, because of the heightened sense of paranoia still lingering from 9/11, citizens show a definite concern for how efficiently the intelligence community of the United States government works. The fusing of
Intelligence is a dependable instrument of its own to generate information that establishes the base of National Security in the United States. Intelligence has been used since the beginning of history to provide information on enemy threats and how to prevent a mass disasters. It has been used for wars, national security, military tactics, etc. Intelligence has been available since the revolutionary war and our first president George Washington and other leaders of the world have used intelligence to protect their countries. Intelligence is the dominant and the backbone of homeland Security and it is ceaseless learning about it. National Intelligence agents train tirelessly to fight and create
“We have learned as a Nation that we must maintain a constant, capable, and vigilant posture to protect ourselves against new threats and evolving hazards. But we have also learned that vigilance and protection are not ends in and of themselves, but rather necessary tools in the service of our national purpose.”(Napolitano, 2010, p.iv) In the wake of the September 11th, 2001 attacks our nation has taken upon itself extreme vigilance to ensure the security and defense of the American people. The relationship between homeland security and homeland defense is one that is tightly knit. Each has a very distinct mission set but somewhere along the spectrum they cross over and mutually support each other in the best interest of the nation.
Abstract: In this analysis, it is shown throughout the many different agencies how the intelligence cycle is interpreted. Within each of the different agencies everyone has their own way of obtaining information and different policies that they follow, within the constriction of the US constitution. The intelligence cycle states the many different steps taken to obtain intelligence from domestic to foreign information.
Intelligence collection and apprehension of criminals have occurred for many years; however, with the exception of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, these actions were performed by different organizations. Nonetheless, roles and responsibilities have changed since the attacks on September 11, 2001. Intelligence-led policing and the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing program were incorporated, and fusion centers were established to help gather intelligence from different levels of the government. Although law enforcement at the local, state, and tribal levels aid in intelligence collection, it is important to ensure that intelligence gathered to protect national security and law enforcement