National Security Act Of 1947 Case Study

Account of the work of the CIA, discussing in some detail the nature of the relationship between the intelligence-gatherer and the policy-maker. Since the 1970s the CIA has provided intelligence to Congress as well as to the executive, so that it now "finds itself in a remarkable position, involuntarily poised nearly equidistant" between them. It has not however abused this freedom of action, probably unique among world intelligence agencies, so as to 'cook ' intelligence. CIA deputy director.

Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

In the intelligence community, there are some collection challenges, redundancy is one of the issues always to be mentioned. Redundancy can affect the core of the intelligence work ethics, resources management, budging, work force, future planning, and development methods. Also, the capability of the intelligence agencies and departments to predict attacks, analyze the indications and warning (I&W). The congress oversight of the intelligence community and the operations of the sixteen agencies imbedded in the community, to regulate the funds and allocate proper budget, also to monitor that the rights of US person are not violated in any collection method.

In this paper the subject of interest is the role of congress in the oversight of strategic intelligence, or the lack there of. Does congress have a proper role in the oversight of strategic intelligence? If not what should the proper role be? These are the questions best answered by looking at the history of congressional over sight and where it is at today. The next few pages will cover the topics above and shed light on what it is congress calls oversight.

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.

There are many significant events in history that have developed our nation into what it is now. One key event was the National Security Act of 1947. The purpose National Security Act was to help strengthen national security, bring together the U.S. Government, and complete unification of the armed forces. This would be cause of the expansion of new government agencies. Some questions arise about the National Security Act of 1947 like, what was the impact the National Security Act on the U.S. Government? Or was the National Security Act of 1947 necessary? Some historians say the Act was created because President Truman didn’t want another incident like the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor that was a surprise attack by the Japanese military

Since 1947, when the Central Intelligence Agency was created, the United States has had an organization that has the sole purpose of conducting covert operations, collecting information, and providing that same information to the respective personnel. Although, this, by some, has been considered conflictual as the CIA is handling those three actions. It is considered that this may be a conflict of interest in a means of, the same people that are collecting information, creating a bias opinion, are conducting the covert action being carried out. This could create a bias work environment. Due to the professionalism and 60 years of success to show for it, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Clandestine Service (NCS) conducting

According to Zegart, the CIA, originally created to manage, not collect, all American intelligence, never became what it was intended. Instead, it became an intelligence collector and, controversially, a means of covert action on behalf of the United States. Both the JCS and NSC, which were followed the precedent set forth by the creation of the CIA. The JCS, envisioned to ensure American military interoperability, and the NSC, envisioned to help shape American foreign policy at the direction of the President, became the military and foreign policy advisors to the President without any ability to enforce the President’s directives. With each agency, the initial ideas responded to national security problems the U.S. identified during WWII. Due to influence from the U.S. military and current government agencies, Zegart concludes, the CIA, JCS, and NSC were inappropriate and ineffective since they were

The National Security Act of 1947 centralized command and promoted intelligence sharing between institutions by establishing a Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Director of Central Intelligence, and NSC. The President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force, and Chairman of the National Security Resources Board composed the original statutory members of the NSC. The President was also authorized to designate other specified officials to the NSC. The NSC staff, which is separate from “the Council,” comprises politically appointed individuals and civil servants organized in specialized directorates. The primary function of the NSC is to advise the President on “domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to the national security.” The NSC acts as a coordinator between departments and agencies across government, and relies on accurate and insightful reports from them to develop national security policy recommendations for the President. The NSC is unique because it both consumes intelligence to make recommendations to the President, and guides intelligence activities by coordinating policies across government.

Congress plays a vital role in strategic intelligence through the use of operational oversight and budget control, but this has become an issue of concern in recent years. Congressional intelligence committees uphold high decisions pertaining to every type of intelligence collection that exist, and was founded on the concept of no one person having absolute power. This is the concept that undergirds the importance of the oversight of national intelligence. Since the U.S. involvement in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Congress has not had a very robust congressional oversight on intelligence and left the decisions to that of the president and the intelligence agency governing important operational matters.

Issues pertaining to Intelligence oversight are intricate ; complicated at best and confusing at worst . By the virtue of its very nature , intelligence and open scrutiny do not mix although that is what Congress is mandated to do . Historically , the debate over Intelligence reform & oversight was a bloody uphill battle between the legislative & executive bodies . To further illustrate that point , a study that researched history of 58 of congressional record , titled “ US INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

One of the biggest challenges for the Intelligence Community (IC) is the balance between gathering actionable intelligence using a variety of intelligence gathering methods with violating the civil liberties of United States citizens. As we discussed last week oversight of the IC by our congressional leaders is at the forefront of ensuring civil liberties and funding for programs are not being abused. The American citizens depend on the congress and the IC to ensure civil liberties are adhered to during all intelligence gathering. The problem is security of information and at times having to reach the tipping point of civil liberties to ensure the public stay safe can cause concern.

The production, analysis, or dissemination of intelligence can be improve to provide actual benefit to homeland security leaders and practitioners in numerous ways. For this to happening, everyone who receives access to intelligence reports must be educated about intelligence itself and willing to understand it. The Washington Post reported in 2004, no more than six senators read beyond the five-page executive summary of the NIE, although 77 senators voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. (Lowenthal, 2008). Even though it was inevitable of going to war with Iraq. The NIE can foreshadow problems to occur, and could have aid senators in different ways. From understanding the situation better, to helping with foreign policy. Homeland security leaders and practitioners must be direct of what types of reports they are requiring.

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

Data can be collected through human sources, satellites, wiretapping, signals, and internet traffic. However, intelligence organizations must be in compliance with the law to ensure that they are not illegally collecting information (Chesney, 2012). Collection occurs because a threat is likely to occur or agencies are trying to find out what information our foreign adversaries possess about the nation’s assets. Intelligence collection occurs in both domestic and foreign territories. Intelligence agencies collect information about foreign adversaries in order to exploit their weaknesses or vulnerabilities (Gentry, 2008). Furthermore, government agencies and political leaders want to discover which of the nation’s assets are seen as vulnerable to the enemy (Gentry, 2008).