Are the DHS and FBI enough?
The existing law enforcement is there: along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), many government agencies work long hours to keep Americans safe. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), US Customs, and the Coast Guard have been rolled into the nascent Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Though not intended to be a domestic intelligence service as such, the inclusion of the organizations mentioned have made intelligence part of DHS' daily operations.
Ironically, the effectiveness of these organizations have actually been reduced since they were brought under the umbrella of the DHS. After the embarrassing debacle of Katrina response, DHS internal auditors took a look at the Department's best practices and found them wanting. According to a report from the DHS Inspector General, the DHS has been hamstrung by its own vast mandate:
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, DHS’ prevention and preparedness for terrorism have overshadowed that for natural hazards, both in perception and in application. Although an “all-hazards” approach can address preparedness needs common to both man-made and natural events, DHS must ensure that all four phases of emergency management – preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation – are managed throughout the department on an all-hazards basis. (Skinner 2006)
Because there are so many facets of Homeland Security, it is very improbable that one agency, however large and well-funded, can address all needs adequately.
These law enforcement agencies are backed up by internationally-focused intelligence services, like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). However, these agencies work almost exclusively abroad, with the FBI handling the vast bulk of domestic intelligence collection. When international terror threats are on their way back to the US, information is shared on a timely basis with domestic law enforcement; the FBI then picks up the trail.
Other nations have domestic intelligence services in order to fight terrorism. Germany has "parallel federal and state intelligence and law enforcement organizations, and both are under their respective ministries of the interior" (GAO 2000). Israel's Mossad is a prime example of an aggressive governmental intelligence arm. Israel is evidence of a nation who had "developed policies to combat terrorism through their experience with various terrorist groups" (Ibid.). I am not advocating that the FBI suddenly ratchets up its aggressiveness to match the ferocity and efficiency of Mossad, but if one wants to isolate an effective anti-terrorist organization, look no further.
There would be a great outcry of "Big Brother" if a domestic intelligence service was formed. Such paranoia police would complain about infringed civil liberties and restricted personal freedoms. Even now, the news is filled with complaints about airline security restrictions and government programs to thwart terrorists. However, the idea and political will are there. Since 9/11, there has been such a groundswell of interest and urgency regarding the formation of a domestic intelligence service.
What do you feel are the advantages and disadvantages of creating a national domestic intelligence service?
Sources:
General Accounting Office, "Combating Terrorism: How Five Foreign Countries Are Organized to Combat Terrorism", April 2000.
Skinner, Richard L. "A Performance Review of FEMA’s Disaster Management Activities in Response to Hurricane Katrina." Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, Mar 2006. Internet: Link, accessed 12 Jun 2007.