The Cicc and Giwg Brief

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

However with recent crime technology, changes in information management and information communications technology (ICT) they have been able to identify “trends, including hotspots, emerging crime groups and targets” (Chantler and Throne 2009, p. 127) and become more proactive in the field. With the growth of organised and transnational crime, intelligence-led policing is the best methodology to effectively combat organised and transnational organised crime (Bell and Congram 2013). Bell and Congram (2013, p. 19) states that transnational organised crime are “vulnerable to detection and disruption because of their communication” thus the use of information communications technology in intelligence-led practices helps reduce the risk of an intelligence attack (Waters, Ball & Dudgeon, 2008; Jackson et al.,

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.

Homeland Security is characterized by crime control being the primary police function. It is best achieved through a collective effort by all law enforcement agencies. One of the strategies being used is Intelligence Led Policing. This strategy is not new, it can be traced back to the British is the 1990’s (Bailey, 2011). Intelligence Led Policing is an approach to crime that deals with all crimes and threats including terrorism. This approach is unique because it is threat driven instead of incident driven. It also is a long term approach and focuses on causes and conditions that add to crime through a collection of data.

DHS has supported this idea of intelligence centers or information analysis centers by having a “renewed commitment to creating a robust, nationwide network of fusion centers to share and analyze data on citizens and others.”1 As of 2009 DHS contributes 254 million in funding to sate and local

Moving along, one of the biggest issues and trends facing law enforcement today and in the future is the use of technology. Today, police organizations have access to a wide range of technological tools, and they are continually advancing and improving. Some of these include records management systems, computer-aided dispatch, GPS technology, license plate readers, biometrics (facial recognition software, for example), crime mapping via geographical information systems, and less-than-lethal weapons (Tasers, beanbag rounds, tear gas,

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.

The devastating events of 9/11 provided a forewarning to our country concerning the dangers of terrorism. However, it has created a particularly greater impact on the duties and standards expected of law enforcement agencies on all levels (local, state, and national). Law enforcement has begun implementing new tactics in an effort to prevent future terrorist attacks from threatening our national security. One aspect of policing in which terrorism has brought about is the process of information sharing between all levels of law enforcement. Our nation has also witnessed a change from traditional policing to that of a militarized one. Furthermore, after the incidents of September 11th, the

Crimes are the result of individuals that do not follow established laws of the land. Criminals can either be individuals or they can be organized groups. The best way for law enforcement to handle the challenges of criminal element is to understand their strategies and then counter them. The purpose of this paper is to review domestic terrorism-related intelligence and how it is related to criminal intelligence. Using criminal intelligence is the first step in dealing with criminal elements. The data is compiled, analyzed, and then sent out in an

The formation of fusion centers is a step in the right direction to countering terrorist threats. By working efficiently and appropriately, information leading to arrests can be shared across county lines, state lines, and all around the world in a timely manner. Fusion centers can make law enforcement agencies more competent and effective in stopping crimes (to include terrorist attacks) before they take place. As long as the centers follow the laws they are governed by, they will remain ethical and can be a helpful addition in protecting the United States. Fusion centers in the United States perform a valuable role in countering terrorist threats, their positive influence far

The 9/11 commission clearly identified a problem with communication between the Intelligence Community and State and Local Law Enforcement which resulted in a new edict (from the IRTPA) of Information Sharing yet clearance levels and accesses quickly became an issue in disseminating information to those with a need to know. To help bridge this gap, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed to crate the DHS by bringing 22 under its umbrella with a primary mission of protecting the homeland from terrorism (Blum, 2010). To do so, DHS’s key mission is to collect, analyze, and disseminate key/related information and share it with the IC and nontraditional partners (state/local governments as well as the private sector) (Blum, 2010). Likewise,

The DHS decided to fix that problem by funding and building fusion centers throughout the nation. Information from federal databases to local police forces would all be connected and analyzed at these centers.

In the State of New York, fusion center is a perfect example of information technology optimizing their performance in reducing crime within their police departments. The New York/New Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Center serves as an information hub for law enforcement. According to (Johnson, 2008), the mass of intelligence data in the central location has proved to be a key factor in identifying individuals and organizations that are facilitating or carrying out terrorist activity in New York City.

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

Fusion centers were created to improve the efficiency of the state and local level of homeland security. "Fusion centers are owned and operated by state and local entities with support from federal partners in the form of deployed personnel, training, technical assistance, exercise support, security clearances, connectivity to federal systems, technology, and grant funding." (U.S. National Intelligence, 2013, p. 20). This initiative is extremely beneficial, because the state level does not always have the means to comb through data. Training also proves to be a costly burden the state cannot always fund. At the national and international level, the country utilizes the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Fusion centers are been extremely effective, because the intelligence gathered in this manner is much more relevant in terms of locale. For example, if the FBI acquires some intelligence about New York City, it does not do much good for California. If California focuses more on itself with the fusion