Let's talk about this a moment.
You say No. The FBI is a criminal investigation organization not a criminal prevention one.
That strikes me as the way we understood the FBI prior to 9-11. If I understand both Mueller and Ashcroft, and possibly, Bush, they understand the FBI role as that of prevention of terrorist attacks. They say they are revamping the FBI so it can prevent; they say the new rules of surveillance are going to be put in place the better to prevent; they want to field agents to be more aggressive, the better to prevent. Seems to me that's exactly the direction they are going.
Are you saying, you think that's ill advised. That the Homeland Security place will do the "prevention" not the FBI?
On the CIA, you say The CIA has an external-only focus by charter. They play by different rules and need to be left to do their job.
That, it's my understanding was Truman's position. And is the rationale for the firewall between the two. But, skipping the business of the charter because that could be changed, they are engaged in homeland security. And let's imagine the two--the FBI and the CIA--combined into one security agency, domestic and foreign. Takes care of the turf wars; takes care of the communication problems.
So what's the problem.
My own concern is not at this level. I, quite frankly, have no idea whether this helps or hurts. It's clear that all sorts of agencies did not have a clue at 9-11, and they should have; that the Bushies are as much to blame as the Clinton folk, etc. But it's not clear combining all these agencies togethers addresses the problems which have been uncovered in the last couple of months.
My concern is the big brother capabilities of all this. I have no clear picture of all this yet. But will see what I can learn over the next several months. Will be interesting. |
