Intelligence Reform And Terrorism Case Study

In 1974 when President Truman signed the National Security Act, which recognized the intelligence community and required congress be “fully informed”. In 1956 President D. Eisenhower establishes the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to counsel the White House on the quality and adequacy of intelligence. 1976 President Ford establishes the Intelligence Oversight Board to advise the President of the legality of intelligence activities. 1977 The House of Representatives establishes the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was not intel 1991 that congress passed the Intelligence Authorization Act, requiring the President to inform congress in writing of all covert actions undertaken by the CIA. Then the attacks of 9/11 happened and in July 2004 the 9/11 Commission released a public report of approximately 40 suggested reforms, several of which were to improve Congressional oversight of intelligence activities. The committee also stated that congress was most responsible and their dysfunctional oversight of intelligence was always dependent on newspaper headlines. This leads to January 2007 when the House responds to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations by establishing the House Appropriations Select Intelligence Oversight

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 devastated the United States people. As they mourned over the deaths caused by the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, Americans began looking for a way to prevent anything like this from happening again. Consequently, an act known as the USA PATRIOT act was passed by Congress. This act opened up many doors previously closed to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. With these new opportunities available to them, they have the capability to obtain information about specific individuals believed to be involved in terrorist activities and organizations. Very beneficial to the United States, the Patriot Act provides easier access for different government law enforcement agencies to share information, allows government agencies investigative tools that non-terrorist crimes already use, and helps to dismantle the terrorist financial network. Although many people claim that the Patriot Act violates the United States Constitution and the freedoms of the American people, it contains many elaborate safeguards to fight against such abuse.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress sprang into action. Within a month, U.S. lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the USA Patriot Act of 2001, giving law enforcement and intelligence agent’s broader authority to fight terrorists operating in the United States.

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 IRTPA of 2004, also established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) as an independent agency to assist the DNI. The ODNI 's goal is to effectively integrate foreign, military and domestic intelligence in defense of the homeland and of United States interests abroad.

The dreadful and terrifying events of September 11 necessitated and increased government 's responsibility to take effective measures for preserving lives of the people and ensuring independence of the society. In this context, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and President Bush pledged to respond within boundaries set by the Constitution confronting and preventing terrorist attacks. Through Patriot Act, the law enforcement agencies of the Untied States are given the most effective tools to combat terrorists having intentions or plans to attack the nation. It is, in fact, a significant weapon for nation 's fight against terror. Major purpose of the Patriot Act is to break wall of regulatory and legal polices existing between the law enforcement agencies and intelligence to share essential as well as related information.

The Patriot Act of 2001 has in many ways changed the way that acts of terrorism and other crimes related to terrorism are handled within the Federal system. The Patriot Act in many ways unites under one law code a few different important clauses relating to tools available to federal law enforcement and also to the new more pressed penalties for terrorist acts. The entire act within itself provides law enforcement a new set of measures and procedures to combating terrorist on the financial field as well as the domestic home front. The most basic of tools that many law enforcement agencies have took advantage of were with the passing of the Patriot Act of 2001 becoming newly available to that of federal investigatory

The tragic events of September 11th, 2001 showed the vulnerabilities of this country as a whole, reflecting the lack of attention this nation gave to terrorism. Following September 11th, it was clear that drastic preventative measures needed to be taken in order to avoid reoccurrence of a destructive and deadly act of terrorism (Simon, 2009). As a response to the attacks, The Patriot Act was passed in October of 2001 in order to give federal agencies a substantial increase in power in accessing, monitoring, and examining records and citizens who have been identified as, or could potentially be, risks to this country. This act also allowed federal agents to single out and watch potential individuals labeled as terrorists without evidence linking them to an actual terrorist organization, as well as allowing for an increase in wiretapping phones of potential suspects (Banks, 2010).

After the 2001 September 11th attacks on the world trade center the nations homeland security policies had to be reinforced. The awkwardly titled so as to unite and Strengthening America Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act, or USAPA) presented a plenty of administrative changes which altogether expanded the reconnaissance and investigative forces of law authorization organizations in the United States. The Act did not, in any case, accommodate the arrangement of balanced governance that generally protects common freedoms despite such enactment. Authoritative recommendations in light of the terrorist assaults of September 11, 2001 were presented not exactly a week after the assaults. President Bush marked the last bill, the USA PATRIOT Act, into law on October 26, 2001. Despite the fact that the Act made critical corrections to more than 15 imperative statutes, it was presented with awesome flurry and went with little verbal confrontation, and without a House, Senate, or meeting report. Therefore, it needs foundation authoritative history that regularly reflectively gives important statutory understanding. The Act was a trade off form of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (ATA), an expansive authoritative bundle planned to fortify the country 's protection against terrorism. The ATA contained a few procurements incomprehensibly growing the power of law authorization and knowledge organizations to screen private

The USA Patriot Act, a backronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, is a vital weapon in fighting terrorism. The basis of the act is to allow law enforcement and intelligence authorities’ unprecedented domestic authority, and the tools already available to wield that authority, in order to thwart plots against the United States and facilitate information sharing among government agencies involving terrorism and foreign intelligence related activities. As a swift reaction of our executive and legislative branches in response to the deadly terrorist attacks that occurred on 9/11, the Patriot Act expanded intelligence gathering capabilities by granting authority

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.

The Director of the C.I.A. reports to the Director of National Intelligence and acts as the head of the C.I.A. As the director of C.I.A he has four responsibilities. One, he collects intelligence through human sources but cannot use any internal security functions or law enforcement powers. Secondly, he correlates and evaluates intelligence connected to national security and appropriately circulate this information. Thirdly, he collects, directs, and coordinates any collection of national data outside of the U.S. done by the C.I.A. Lastly, he in charge of any other duties and functions the President or Director of National Intelligence may direct that affects national security.

In response to the attacks on 9/11 the PATRIOT act was passed. (Congressional Digest 2004, 258) The PATRIOT act provided, in many ways like the creation of Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sweeping changes across the government. The PATRIOT act allowed law enforcement unprecedented latitude to identify, prosecute, and ultimately stop terrorists from harming Americans. There were three broad areas where the act gave the agencies tracking terrorists more help. (Congressional Digest 2004,

The United States Code (U.S.C.) “establishes and governs the form, function, duties, and responsibilities of the US Government”. The foundational to US National Security and foreign relations are based on the three titles in the U.S.C, namely, Title 10, Title 22, and Title 50; which “govern US Armed Forces, the Department of State, public diplomacy efforts, and national defense” (American Security Project, 2012). However, the National Security Act of 1947 was the first U.S. law on the conduct of intelligence operations. The act established the Central Intelligence Agency “to collect, analyze, evaluate, and disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security” (Central Intelligence Agency (2013). This intelligence law help to define the roles of policymakers, (Executive Branch oversight, and Congressional oversight) while making decisions relating to national security; and also defined the scope and functions of intelligence community. For instance, the President who is the head of the executive branch and commander in chief has the authority to direct military operations and intelligence activities against external threats resides in his Constitutional executive and commander-in-chief powers (Wall, 2011).

intelligence, he briefs the President, has authority to develop the budget for the national intelligence effort and manage appropriations made by Congress, and, to some extent, can transfer personnel and funds from one agency to another.3 I believe that the creation of the DNI position had been on the table for a few years, but the intelligence failures of communication between the agencies and being able to connect the dots to see the events leading up to 9/11 was the last drop in the bucket. I do not think that this organization has worked out all there kinks along with the other organizations in the Intelligence Community completely being open with them, however, I do feel that their roles and placement in the chain is a much needed

each headed by an Executive Assistant Director. Three other branches, also headed by an Executive Assistant Director, are tasked primarily with strategic planning and program management in their specific area of responsibility. The National Security Branch houses the Counterterrorism Division, the Counterintelligence Division, the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, the Terrorist Screening Center, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. The Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch houses the Criminal Investigations Division the Cyber Division, the Critical Incident Response Group, the International Operations Division (Which handles all of the Legal Attache Offices), and the Office of Victim Assistance. Lastly the Intelligence Branch houses the Directorate of Intelligence.