Secrecy, Good, Bad, Or Both?

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

Congress built upon the reforms of the 1970s by passing the Intelligence Oversight Act in 1980. This Act was an amendment to the Hughes-Ryan Act and obligated the IC to report covert actions to both the SSCI and the HPSCI prior to their implementation, unlike the ambiguous previous requirement of a timely manner. The Intelligence Oversight Act was noteworthy in that it constrained the intelligence community more than any previous legislation (Riley 2010). The two biggest shortfalls I see to the system is the number of contributors there are to the system on such a large scale. When I think about all of the redundancy built within the system, I think about all of the possible breakdown in communications that could take place. The second shortfall I see is the legislative leverage that is held over the Intelligence community. I personally believe this to be a mistake because this power could be held in a negative manner and to gain a political stance or agenda. The Congress can withhold money and resources, can leak information to the media and which could cause a mission or operation to

Congress started their own investigations into each agency, and their findings were atrocious. In one case going back to the 50’s the CIA gave our own citizens doses of LSD, and in one case was enough for individual to commit suicide (people pg.554.) The CIA was also linked to a plot to kill Fidel Castro, and other leaders of Cuba. The FBI was linked to actions such as tampering with certain political groups/activists, and may have had a role in the murder of Blank Panther leader Fred Hampton (people pg.555) More notably the FBI was involved in COINTELPRO, which included illegal actions such as fraud, and strong arming certain political groups into an agreement. All of these actions turned a sense of trust in our government entities into a hatred, and angst as to what might come to light next (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html. A Harvard University Professor, and advisor to the white house Samuel Huntington produced the report entitle Governability of Democracies. IN this report he cited the now lack of government respect, and authority compared to years past. One figure he points out that in 1960 18% of the public viewed government spending to high, and in 1969 that number rose to around 52%. A few lines he was quoted as saying referring to the time “ People no longer felt the same obligation to obey those whom they had previously considered superior to themselves in age, rank, status, expertise, character, or talents ( people 559). His words optimized what became to be the feeling of the 1970’s, and even still today of our political leaders, and government. No longer do people revere these figures as they did in the days of FDR, or Truman. They are now questioning every decision our leaders

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

An apparent fear in the public is that power delegated by the citizen to their government may be abused and used against them. Intelligence-gathering, when efficiently performed in ways consistent with Americans’ rights and expectations, is similarly essential.

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.

Point #1: Before we head out, you’ll need some background intel. From the Roman Empire to the NSA, spies have been a part of our government for ages. According to the BBC, in ancient Rome, most major political powers had surveillance networks. In fact Cicero, a politician and orator, was upset that his letters were

While there is a need to keep some information in secrecy, if the information is not shared with the right people, then the information does not serves any purposes. When classified information is shared, there will always be a risk that it could be leaked by someone within the USIC. Similarly, if the information is not shared with important members and partners of the USIC, then there will always be a risk that a terrorist attack will not be prevented because some members and partners of the USIC were not aware of the information that was collected. Moreover, the FBI should make aware and provide information to state an local law enforcement agencies whenever they decide to stop an ongoing investigation of a suspect. Doing this can allow state and local law enforcement agencies to be able to monitor these suspects for a while in case that the FBI could not collect enough information and the suspects turn out to be terrorists or terrorist supporters.

a swing in the emphasis and the resources devoted to this activity. Note; In all areas, confidentiality is of critical importance.

One of the core regulatory requirements that the CIA operates under are the Presidential directives, in which Congress determines the activities that the organization can participate in. Initially, at the formation of the organization in 1957, Congress was the legal body that provided oversight authority over the CIA. However, in the mid-1970s, this changed as it was delegated to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) to carry out the tasks. This move was guided by the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980. Therefore, legally, the operations of the CIA are defined and guided within the realms of this Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980.

The United States has had a long and complicated journey with intelligence. Throughout its early history, the United States had a sporadic relationship with the intelligence community, only utilizing intelligence during wartime. After World War II, it became clear that the United States needed to enhance its intelligence gathering systems in order to prevent another disaster of this magnitude. Reacting to this pressure, policymakers soon drafted and passed the National Intelligence Act of 1947, creating the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the United States’ first peacetime intelligence agency. Though not always entirely authorized to do so, the CIA has carried out many covert operations with varying levels of success. Despite the fact that some of these operations have been a success, covert operations have largely been a detriment to the United States; covert operations hurt the United States’ public image, rarely fix the original problem entirely, and were not meant, by those who drafter the National Intelligence Act of 1947, to be carried out by the CIA.

One of the most controversial issues regarding our intelligence agency is the consolidation of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies in a massive post 9/11 overhaul, this policy problem is about how to restructure our current intelligence system for a better national security. A number of critics and public polls stated that this act could add potential a large amount of unnecessary cost to bureaucracy, on the contrary, supporters claim that this help the agencies share information and work on the same goal.

As any other business, since their inception all the intelligence agencies have had interagency rivalry with each other and did not like to share information. September 11, 2001 changed all not only because we were attacked on home soil, but also because much of the blame fell on intelligence failure. Prior to these horrific events, FBI focused on domestic issues, CIA on issues abroad and the two rarely coordinated operations and shared information. The rest of the community stayed focused on their own mission sets and much like the CIA and FBI, the information collaboration was limited to none existent. Since the Intelligence Community has evolved for the better and now information is shared across the community at a much larger scale than ever before.

Times were different before WW2 and the Pearl Harbor Attacks. Before the Pearl Harbor attacks our nation did not think much of National Security. After the attacks during WW2 the nation as a collective viewed the Nation’s security as a much higher priority and with a sense of examination. One major result was the National Security Act of 1947. The National Security Act created legal basis to the intelligence community also making the intelligence function permanent. “An Act: To promote the national security by providing for a Secretary of Defense, for a National Military Establishment for a Department of the Army, A Department of Navy, A Department of Air Force: And for the coordination of the activities of the National Military Establishment

This led to a lack of communication between these agencies as the federal government followed their intelligence sharing policies leaving everyone else on the outside looking in. On top of this, the different federal agencies never developed appropriate methods of sharing intelligence information amongst themselves. This provision of the Patriot Act has helped to change this problem, and has now opened lines of communication within the entire law enforcement community. This should result in better intelligence gathering as different law enforcement agencies may develop different pieces of the same puzzle and now can put them all