Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/22/2004 10:24:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2004 12:35:54 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]

Senate Republicans Weigh Dismantling CIA

36 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans proposed removing the nation's largest intelligence gathering operations from the CIA (news - web sites) and the Pentagon (news - web sites) and putting them directly under a new national intelligence director.


AP Photo


Reuters
Slideshow: Homeland Security




Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., the committee chairman, unveiled on Sunday the most sweeping intelligence reorganization proposal offered by anyone since the Sept. ll commission called for major changes. In an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," Roberts acknowledged that full details had yet to be shared with either the White House or with Senate Democrats.


"We didn't pay attention to turf or agencies or boxes" but rather to "what are the national security threats that face this country today," Roberts said of the proposals supported by eight GOP members of the intelligence committee. "I'm trying to build a consensus around something that's very different and very bold."


But he immediately ran into some resistance from a Democrat on his own committee. Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., said that before appearing with Roberts on the CBS show neither he nor the committee's ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, had seen the full proposal.


"I think it would be better to start on a bipartisan basis," Levin said. "I think it's a mistake to begin with a partisan bill no matter what is in it."


The commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks called for a powerful national intelligence director who could force the nation's many agencies to cooperate.


Up to now the debate has focused on how much power to give that official rather than on retooling agencies. Most Democrats have supported the commission's proposal that the new director have authority over hiring and spending by the intelligence agencies. President Bush (news - web sites) has endorsed creating the position but has not reached a final decision on what powers the office should have.


Roberts said his aides had spoken with White House officials and would share the details of his proposal with them on Monday.


Roberts' plan would put the CIA's three main directorates — Operations, which runs intelligence collection and covert actions; Intelligence, which analyzes intelligence reports; and Science and Technology — into three new, separate and renamed agencies, each reporting to a separate assistant national intelligence director. It also would remove three of the largest intelligence agencies from the Pentagon.


Although the measure would essentially dismantle the CIA, Roberts said in a paper he released: "We are not abolishing the CIA. We are reordering and renaming its three major elements."


"No one agency, no matter how distinguished its history, is more important than U.S. national security," the paper said.


A congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there would be no CIA director, and the agency's parts would have new names under a new management structure.


Despite Roberts' assertion that he wouldn't abolish the CIA, some intelligence officials think that sounds exactly like what he is trying to do.


Some intelligence officials think Roberts' proposal is "unworkable and could hamper the nation's intelligence efforts at a critical time," said one, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the debate. This official added that rather than eliminating barriers between agencies and bringing functions together, "it smashes them apart."


Last week, acting CIA Director John McLaughlin, a career agency employee, urged Congress to move carefully and argued that there had been dramatic improvement since Sept. 11 in the sharing of information by various intelligence agencies.


Equally drastic changes were proposed at the Pentagon.


The nation's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency, which intercepts electronic signals around the world, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes satellite pictures, would be removed from the Pentagon and put under direct control of an assistant national intelligence director for collection.





The Defense Intelligence Agency's human intelligence collection activity would become a separate agency, like the former CIA directorate of operations.

Both would report to the same assistant national intelligence director for collection. This official also would have direct line control over the FBI (news - web sites)'s counterintelligence and counterterrorism units, although they would continue to operate within the FBI administratively and would still be subject to attorney general guidelines.

The Pentagon's huge National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites, would work under an assistant national intelligence director for Research, Development and Acquisition. That same assistant would also run the CIA's former directorate of science and technology as an independent agency called the Office of Technical Support.

In a Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) hearing last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld advised moving cautiously in restructuring the intelligence community.

"If we move unwisely and get it wrong, the penalty would be great," Rumsfeld said. "We would not want to place new barriers or filters between military combatant commanders and those agencies when they perform as combat-support agencies."

Perhaps mindful of that warning, Roberts' plan would create a separate assistant national intelligence director for military support and a four-star director of military intelligence who would run Defense Department tactical intelligence units and report directly to the defense secretary.

__

Associated Press writer Katherine Pfleger Shrader contributed to this report.

__

On the Net:

Senate Intelligence Committee: http://intelligence.senate.gov/





poll coming
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:10:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:14:28 PM EST
The dumb fuckers are at it again!!

They never needed to create a Dept. of Homeland Defence either. If they would have hired 200 annalists with a boss who could kick ass on all Agencies, we would have been MUCH BETTER OFF!!!


Dept of HLD SUCKS!!

Now the jerkoffs want to do this.

DUMBASSES.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:20:28 PM EST
I think the organizational structure is good overall. We still have treats from near-superpower and superpower states. We just need to stop being so damn PC and let the CIA get some dirt back on there hands.

I don't think splintering the CIA's assets up and seperating them from the DOD would help. If anything it would give even more power to an all ready too powerful DOJ. A lot of folks on here may have no problem with the DOJ and the Patriot Act bu we need to remember that we will not always have a president who is so friendly to gun owners. And this unrestricted power that we are giving to the DOJ may one day be used against "Domestic Terrorists" a.k.a gun owners who won't surrender there guns to confiscation. Currently the CIA being under the DOD gives us a certian degree of protection via Posse Comataus Act (sp.) and some other directives that prevent the CIA from spying on US Citizens.

We need better communication in the intelligence community and we need to kill these terrorists before they make it in country. And the CIA should be closely tied to the DOD so the CIA would have unfettered access to the DOD's heavy firepower; Air Strikes, Drones, etc..

Just my 2 cents

ffsparky26 does not claim any mil experience nor experience as a spook.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:31:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/22/2004 12:31:35 PM EST by SANGUINE]
It's a good idea. Even if they don't change the name . Continuos improvement is always good. It could mean new updated equipment, better people in charge, etc. Why do you think large corporations periodically revamp their organizations? To make it better.

Do the same old thing and you get the sameold results!
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 12:40:09 PM EST
I think its not a good idea. The only thing the existing agencies need is a change of PERSONAL to people who are more interested in doing their job than in carreer advancement and politics. How is changing the agency going to alleviate this problem?
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 5:00:44 PM EST
I'm all for something that works, but I don't see how "rebranding" a department and adding a layer of managment is going to make things better. Did the Border Patrol really become that much better because they moved to HLS? I think it's all about:

1) Making the sheeple think that all's well because Congress has done something about it.

2) Inventing new ways to make budgets and more budgets that Congress can oversee and therefore have more power and influence.

Will calling it the CIA, ABC, XYZ, and adding a new agency or two really change the product that is being turned out? Will this really change how that product is interpreted and utilized? Unless the answer is yes to both, then it's not going to work.

Will it cause new agencies, new beuracracies and new budgets to exist? Will Congress get to oversee new budgets, new agencies and new programs that will spend money in the various constituencies? Would that enhance the ability of Congressmen to wield that power over what is essentially an exectuive function? If the answer to those is yes, then it's not going to work as advertised either.

I don't see how making a separate "operations directorate" and a new separate DIA (independent of the Petagon) that does basically the same thing is getting us anywhere. Two separate agencies to collect HUMINT, but answer to the same guy? Two separate agencies to do the satellite mission, but report to the same guy? I can see giving the whole job to one or the other, which would eliminate any barriers, but this is the same as having two salespeople work the same territory and expect them to share leads and secrets with each other.

I can see doing something, but this isn't it.

Ross
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 5:05:22 PM EST
Worst possible idea and a recipe for disaster. Now is absolutely not the time to recreate our intel agencies.
Put it all back under CIA which is how it should be. Intel, counterintel, counterterrorism, all of it except that is clearly useful for DOD to have it's own intel in addition.

Link Posted: 8/22/2004 5:05:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By sniper1az:
The dumb fuckers are at it again!!
They never needed to create a Dept. of Homeland Defence either. If they would have hired 200 annalists with a boss who could kick ass on all Agencies, we would have been MUCH BETTER OFF!!!

Dept of HLD SUCKS!!
Now the jerkoffs want to do this.
DUMBASSES.


wow, what an astute assessment of the situation. Please tell me, how many terrorists attacks have happened in the United States since the Dept. of Homeland Defense was established?
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 5:32:36 PM EST
I am not a fan of the CIA but changing horses in mid-stream when the Us has been terror free since 9/11 seems to me to be a mistake.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 5:39:30 PM EST
CIA with a new name and attitude.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 5:45:56 PM EST
I have to agree that the number one argument against this is that the CIA currently

1. cannot spy on US citizens
2. Is relatively autonomous and leadership survives /relatively/ independent of political winds

Putting this under DHS means
1. New intelligence agency could spy on US citizens (unless otherwise specified)
2. It becomes a lot more political than the traditional model :/
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 9:45:22 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 9:59:03 PM EST
I thought the CIA was originally meant to be top dog as far as intel agencies went? So make it top dog! Put the director in charge of the intelligence budget and tell all the others to do what he says.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 10:04:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I thought the CIA was originally meant to be top dog as far as intel agencies went? So make it top dog! Put the director in charge of the intelligence budget and tell all the others to do what he says.




If you determine who is top dog according to size of budget allocation, the CIA is not top dog.

Not even close.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 10:07:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I thought the CIA was originally meant to be top dog as far as intel agencies went? So make it top dog! Put the director in charge of the intelligence budget and tell all the others to do what he says.




If you determine who is top dog according to size of budget allocation, the CIA is not top dog.

Not even close.



I know, but the CIA was suposed to be where all of the intel went, instead of 15 different groups trying to keep it secret from each other.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 10:10:23 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 10:22:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I thought the CIA was originally meant to be top dog as far as intel agencies went? So make it top dog! Put the director in charge of the intelligence budget and tell all the others to do what he says.




If you determine who is top dog according to size of budget allocation, the CIA is not top dog.

Not even close.



I know, but the CIA was suposed to be where all of the intel went, instead of 15 different groups trying to keep it secret from each other.




Not quite. Each agency has a separate charter indicating separate and distinct responsibilities.

As far as mixing the agencies around, it could be either a good thing or a bad thing. The devil is in the details - which we haven't seen. It wouldn't hurt to shake up the bureaucrats and give them an opportunity to refocus and prioritize. However, we would need to make sure that certain users of the data would not be ignored or not supported. As it stands now, the DOD contains the lion's share of the intelligence budget and does not want to hand it over to a non-DOD civilian. That's understandable but may be unavoidable at the same time.
Link Posted: 8/22/2004 10:54:14 PM EST
This is a pretty bad idea. We have ALREADY seen the intelligence community misused by certain individuals in congress as a political instrument to smear President Bush.

This would only make it easier.


I heard a close friend of mine (who is fairly conservative) say to me today, "we need limits on liberties in the interests of security."
Top Top