Drug Cartels Chuckle at Our Muppet-in-Chief's Priorities

There will be a lot more drugs for sale at the corner of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood and Sesame Street thanks to questionable budgetary priorities in the Obama Administration.  Of the few and clearly defined enumerated powers of the Federal government, noticeably absent from the list is funding television and radio stations.  Noticeably present in that list is protecting the United States from all enemies and maintaining public safety so citizens may pursue their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Grateful to the Obama Administration for the $451 million vote of confidence!

Yet, when faced with a budget priority decision between funding efforts to protect the United States from its "greatest organized crime threat" and funding NPR and PBS, the Obama Administration chose the priority with the greater potential political profit:  keeping Muppets on the air.  Capital Cloak has nothing against Muppets, mind you. Likewise Capital Cloak has nothing against cartoon character Arthur, except when he shows up at the Capitol building along with Bert and Ernie to pull on the heart strings of Members of Congress before they vote on "GOPink slips" for the beloved animated friends. However, Capital Cloak DOES have something against increasing funding for NPR and PBS to extraordinary levels - $451 million for the coming fiscal year- at the expense of cutting $38 million from an agency fighting what the Administration's own Homeland Security Secretary declared as our greatest crime threat in America today. 


It would seem a no-brainer for a Commander in Chief to try and secure his nation's borders and dedicate sufficient resources to fight international criminals bent on enslaving his countrymen.  Not so, with our current Muppet-in-Chief.  In the same budget which gives such a windfall to NPR and PBS, the Department of Justice agency tasked with combating organized drug cartels on American Soil, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), received a reduced budget - $38 million in cuts - from the previous fiscal year.  The Administration likes to chide Americans that everyone needs to tighten their fiscal belts and sacrifice, but apparently that sense of sacrificial duty only applies to agencies that actually safeguard Americans from crime and work to stem the tide of drugs pouring across our borders daily.  If you host news shows on PBS and speak glowingly of the Administration, or if you provide children's programming that could easily be provided, and is provided, in the private sector by companies such as Disney and Nickelodeon, you not only are not expected to sacrifice, you are handed $6 million more than last year, bringing your total to a staggering $451 million budget.  That is a belt-tightening that will only encourage further wallowing in the government trough.

Lest anyone think that NPR and PBS employees can maintain any degree of impartiality in their news coverage of current events involving President Obama, representatives of both entities expressed that they were "grateful to the Obama Administration" for the "vote of confidence".  How does one repay a debt of gratitude totaling $451 million?  With truthful but sometimes unflattering news stories and documentaries about the Administration?  Not likely. Where is intrepid Sesame Street Muppet Newsflash reporter Kermit the Frog to get to the truth of biased NPR and PBS news coverage of Democratic administrations? Somehow this video seemed all too applicable to any assurances we may hear from NPR or PBS officials about their political impartiality after being "rescued" budget after budget by Democratic administrations:

An Administration's priorities are best observed in what it desires to spend money to accomplish and what it is willing to cut from its budget.  Despite tough talk about drug cartels by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in 2009, the Administration's latest budget proposal to cut DEA funding by $38 million while throwing money at PBS and NPR clearly demonstrates that controlling the messages broadcast over public television and radio is of far greater importance than controlling drug-related crime and the alarming spread of drug cartels in nearly every American city.  This is what Secretary Napolitano warned in 2009:

Mexican drug cartels maintain drug-distribution networks, or supply drugs to distributors, in at least 230 American cities, leading the Justice Department to call Mexican drug cartels the ‘greatest organized crime threat to the United States

 Americans of all political stripes and economic classes are being murdered by cartels and gangs over drugs.  Americans of all ideologies and incomes are becoming addicted to drugs supplied by cartels.  Families are literally being ripped apart by the ravages of illicit drug activity in homes and schools.  These cartels are operating brazenly in our streets, knowing that our government lacks the spine to commit adequate resources to the task of fighting them with any semblance of efficacy.  They operate in real cities, on real streets.  Except, of course, on Sesame Street, where everything is "A-okay" as long as the taxpayer spigot never slows by even one drop.  If funding public broadcasting is a high priority for the Obama Administration, then let it find those funds at the expense of agencies with no explicit duties to protect our national security and keep us safe to continue in our pursuit of happiness.  Keeping the men in the picture above off our streets is more important to most Americans than keeping Arthur in our living rooms.

Immigration Crackdown Proves Chertoff Wrong

When the government initiates an enforcement "crackdown," it is reasonable to conclude that it was previously lax on enforcement. Today's headlines read, "Bush to Order New Crackdown on US Border," or "Feds Stepping Up Immigration Efforts." Less than three months ago, while pleading for passage of the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigration amnesty bill, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff warned that America needed to "bow to reality" and realize that deportation of illegal immigrants in large numbers was "not going to happen."

At the time, Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) rebutted Chertoff's white flag approach by pointing out that the proposed legislation would not be necessary if the Bush administration actually enforced existing laws. Bilbray accused Chertoff of intentionally following a "conscious strategy of not enforcing the law," that has created the crisis of 12-20 million illegal immigrants to which Chertoff and President Bush wanted to grant amnesty. Who was right, Bilbray or Chertoff, in the debate over enforcement of existing laws versus the need for "comprehensive" solutions contained in the failed McCain-Kennedy legislation?

The answer to that question will be officially announced today by the Bush administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Without passing the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, the government is initiating a series of "initiatives" that increase punishments for employers hiring illegal immigrants, crack down on workers using fake or stolen Social Security numbers, reform temporary worker programs, deploy Border Patrol agents to the borders in larger numbers and with less delay, and increase the number and pace of deportations. Secretary Chertoff had previously claimed that such reforms were "not going to happen" without the McCain-Kennedy legislation, yet now we see most of those reforms being implemented through internal initiatives within Homeland Security and executive initiatives authorized by the president. As the Associated Press reports, the initiatives are strikingly similar to many of the immigration reform and enforcement provisions of the McCain-Kennedy bill, minus the "path to citizenship" aspects that critics rightfully castigated as facilitating amnesty for those already in America illegally.

Chertoff has apparently changed his tune, now vowing to enforce laws that in May he considered unrealistic. From the AP and Fox News:

Chertoff alluded to the new enforcement tactics in a speech in Boston on Wednesday, calling it "tool sharpening."

"We shouldn't have a patchwork of laws. We should be doing a comprehensive federal solution, but we haven't got that thing done," Chertoff said. "What I can tell you is we will certainly use every enforcement tool that we have, and every resource that we have available, to tackle the problem."

Even after suffering a major defeat when the proposed amnesty bill went down in flames this summer, Chertoff continues to pine for his beloved "comprehensive federal solution." Yet now, under enormous political pressure from conservatives to enforce existing immigration laws or be replaced by someone who will, Chertoff vowed to use every tool and resource available "to tackle the problem" of illegal immigration. Congressman Bilbray and American voters have the right to ask Chertoff, why weren't you using every available tool and resource to crack down on illegal immigration before your beloved reform bill was rejected?

There was no such assurance of enforcement before the defeat of McCain-Kennedy. Homeland Security appeared to be content to place strict enforcement efforts on sabbatical until an amnesty bill could be passed that would remove the impetus for tracking down 12-20 million illegal immigrants and gradually deporting them. It is clear that Congressman Bilbray's accusation against Chertoff was accurate: prior to the failure of the recent amnesty bill, the Bush administration was indeed consciously avoiding strict enforcement of existing illegal immigration laws, which only made the problem more severe. The administration seemed to believe that it could get itself off the hook for lax immigration enforcement and simultaneously earn the affection of millions of potential voters by granting amnesty.

Why has the Bush administration stepped forward now to enforce laws it would have been content to replace with amnesty only a few months ago? Considering its intentional failure to enforce existing law prior to the McCain-Kennedy debacle, the Bush administration appears now to be stepping up enforcement and initiating internal immigration reform within Homeland Security out of political expediency rather than actual desire for enforcement. The grass-roots groundswell in both parties, but championed most effectively by conservatives, that was created by the president's attempt to grant amnesty was much stronger and career-threatening than anyone in the White House or Congress apparently anticipated.

Now running for their political lives, those who once claimed reform could not happen without amnesty are rapidly "discovering" that the reform that voters wanted most, strict enforcement of existing immigration laws, is possible and essential to their future political viability.

Without granting amnesty and by merely changing internal priorities, Homeland Security will reportedly announce later today the following crackdown enforcement measures, among others:

1. Impose criminal sanctions against employers who refuse to terminate workers using fake or stolen Social Security numbers.

2. Install by the end of the year an exit visa system to track foreigners leaving the U.S. Currently only entrance visa data is collected.

3. Update the list of international gangs whose members are denied U.S. entry.

4. Speed up deployment of Border Patrol agents to the border.

5. Increase fines imposed on employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

6. Reduce processing times for immigrant background checks.

7. Request that states voluntarily share driver's license info and photos with DHS to facilitate an employment verification system.

8. Reform temporary worker programs.

9. Increase the number of beds for detained illegal immigrants so they will not be released due to insufficient detention space.

10. Train increasing numbers of state and local law enforcement to identify and detain immigration offenders.

11. Reduce the number of documents accepted as foreign identification for immigration purposes and weed out those most frequently associated with fraud.

Each of these is certainly a welcome change from what could charitably be described as "deficient" previous enforcement efforts. The very fact that the government can "crackdown" on illegal immigration when it becomes politically expedient demonstrates that it already had all of the tools and resources needed to enforce existing laws, as Congressman Bilbray argued. While this new crackdown is a step in the right direction, it should also keep Americans wary of government officials who insist that something cannot be done. The McCain-Kennedy bill debate demonstrated that the government did not lack the tools or resources needed for strict illegal immigration enforcement, it simply did not have the stomach or political will to enforce the law.

Our justice system is supposed to be blind, as the symbol of that system, Lady Justice, illustrates. She holds the scales of justice and hears the arguments from each side of the scale, yet she also wears a blindfold. This is symbolic of the need for justice to not see or take into consideration the race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, or any other characteristic of the parties pleading their cases before her. Law enforcement is supposed to take the same approach. It should not matter whether an administration, Democratic or Republican, might suffer politically from the enforcement of our laws. Those laws were enacted by the people's representatives and should be enforced with blindness to the political climate of the moment. Governments should not pass laws they do not intend to enforce. Hopefully these new initiatives to be announced later this morning signal a new resolve within this administration to listen to voter concerns and strictly enforce existing laws long enough for us to determine what changes, if any, are needed in the future.

Technorati Tags:
Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, Brian Bilbray, Illegal Immigration, Immigration Reform, McCain-Kennedy, Border Enforcement, Immigration Crackdown

Gut Check: Chertoff v. Threat Assessment

A U.S. counterterrorism official leaked portions of a new classified report to the media this morning warning that al Qaeda has regrouped to near pre-9/11 strength and may be poised for significant attacks. No, wait, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff insisted to the media this morning that the threat posed by al Qaeda has NOT returned to pre-9/11 levels. What is wrong with this picture? The anonymous counterterrorism official “familiar with” the contents of a classified report titled “Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West” stated that the report would be included in a meeting today at the White House to discuss a pending National Intelligence Estimate. This raises a crucial question; had Secretary Chertoff already read the summary report about al Qaeda’s renewed strength before he claimed to have a “gut feeling” that America may be attacked this summer and before he later assured Americans via ABC and NBC appearances that al Qaeda does not pose as great a threat today as it did in the summer of 2001?

The contradictions between the AP’s counterterrorism source and Secretary Chertoff are curious. If Secretary Chertoff’s widely ridiculed comment Tuesday about his “gut feeling” that America faces a heightened risk of attack this summer came after he had reviewed the summary report leaked by the AP’s anonymous source, then what did Chertoff really mean with his “gut feeling” remark? One could interpret Chertoff’s remarks as a call to vigilance, as he later characterized them, and not as indicating knowledge of specific threats or plots. On the surface that could pass as a somewhat logical explanation. However, if Chertoff had already reviewed the classified report later leaked to the Post, then that report constituted the basis for his “gut feeling” about our increased risk of a summer attack. The logical conclusion here is that Chertoff would only state that his “gut” told him al Qaeda was likely to attempt an attack in America this summer if he had read classified reports describing al Qaeda’s strength and activity now as approaching the level of summer 2001.

He later explained away his “gut feeling” remarks as merely a general call for Americans to be vigilant and observant, but if that is true, then why downplay the current risk from al Qaeda? Americans are traditionally entertained by things that revolve, such as doors, merry-go-rounds, or carousels, but do not expect government terror warnings to revolve by being issued, contradicted, retracted, and reissued like a carnival ride.

When intelligence community and counterterrorism officials contradict statements by the Homeland Security secretary, we should all sit up and take notice. The reality is that a classified document reportedly confirms that al Qaeda is nearly as strong as it was prior to 9/11 and may be prepared to strike us with operations rivaling 9/11 in scope and ambition, but our Homeland Security secretary assures us that al Qaeda is actually not that strong while simultaneously warning that his “gut” tells him we may be attacked this summer. Chertoff’s Potomac two-step on this assessment of al Qaeda would be a humorous example of political double-speak if it merely involved politics, but since it involves national security there is nothing funny about the mixed messages coming out of Washington in advance of today’s intelligence meeting at the White House.

Americans do not mind requests to be vigilant. Such warnings appeal to our individualism and desire to add a small personal contribution to winning the War on Terror. However, Americans become justifiably cynical of all such warnings and grow to distrust the government officials who issue them when warnings are given in a disingenuous manner. Chertoff’s comment that he just had a “gut feeling” when it appears now that it was actually a now-leaked classified report that stirred his gut was both disingenuous and unnecessary. Instead of hinting at classified reports or using a smokescreen “gut feeling” comment that he should have known would bring him only ridicule, Chertoff could have stated something like the following:

“While we have been fortunate to have avoided another attack in America since 9/11, we do not underestimate the capabilities and determination of al Qaeda. Tourist attractions and vacation sites are crowded and popular during the summer months and may present attractive targets for terrorists wishing to inflict mass casualties. I urge Americans to be vigilant and observant as they vacation and travel this summer, and to report anything suspicious. Together, we can all work to keep each other safe.”

The above statement would have delivered the message Chertoff intended to convey, namely to be vigilant for a possible summer attack, without hinting at any specific intelligence or creating the impression that he was withholding information. Unfortunately, instead he chose to mention his “gut feeling” and then promptly backtracked on his position when assessments of the capabilities of al Qaeda were leaked to the media. These are not actions that secure the trust and united vigilance of Americans that Chertoff and other government officials rightly desire.

The assessments of al Qaeda’s current strength and operational abilities as leaked to the AP, if they were cited correctly by the anonymous source, paint a different portrait of al Qaeda’s current capabilities than Chertoff offered in his Good Morning America statement that the threat is not as great as it was pre-9/11. According to the AP source:

A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

...Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.
…The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

If the AP source quoted the report accurately, it appears that al Qaeda is not only rapidly approaching pre 9/11 strength but is becoming more formidable and less detectable as it recruits more European followers willing to carry out attacks. A buildup of its middle ranks also signifies a shift in strategy away from occasional spectacular attacks like 9/11 to frequent mid or small-scale attacks on softer targets, such as nightclubs, shopping malls, or other public gathering places. The middle ranks of a terrorist cell would not be entrusted with planning major attacks, but with sufficient training they could operate as independent cells with discretion on choice of small-attack venues. The doctors involved in the recent attempted bombings in London and Glasgow are examples of al Qaeda’s middle ranks. They operated locally, unsuspected by the community, and had it not been for a wireless phone issue the bombings would have been successful.

If al Qaeda is working to flood its organization with “middle ranks” then the strategy has shifted to a sustained campaign of attrition much like it is conducting in Iraq. That effort has already produced a growing American desire to withdraw from Iraq. Imagine the chaos and finger-pointing that will ensure in America when a seemingly endless wave of smaller bombings and other forms of terror attacks begins in earnest in this country.

While Chertoff was correct in stating that al Qaeda is not precisely as strong as it was prior to 9/11, that fact should in no way comfort America and its allies. Often when a bone is broken, it heals and becomes stronger in the area of the break than it was before because of the addition of new and vital tissues. Al Qaeda appears to be healing its broken bones and becoming potentially stronger than it was before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the addition of new European, and one would logically assume American, operatives. That prospect should cause all of us to experience a “gut feeling” that we will be increasingly at risk.

Technorati Tags:
al Qaeda, War on Terror, National Intelligence Estimates, Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security, Gut Feeling, Pakistan, Counterterrorism

Former Army Sec Faults DHS Terror Plans

The War on Terror is not, as Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards claims, merely a bumper sticker slogan, but it is rapidly regressing into perhaps the highest-stakes blame game in our nation’s history. When attacks or attempted attacks occur, the outrage expressed usually focuses on whom within America or among our allies failed to predict and prevent the attacks, but very little ire is directed towards those who perpetrated the cowardly acts. Americans are obsessed with assigning blame within our own government, desperate to identify an internal flaw that makes such attacks inevitable because Americans like to be liked and have difficulty fathoming the fact that much of the world detests America and all that it represents, for good or evil. We spent far more energy and resources on study groups, commissions, and media reports to determine who within the U.S. government was to blame for the 9/11 attacks, even while the remains of victims were being unearthed at Ground Zero.

Meanwhile on 9/11, there was dancing, rejoicing, and celebratory gunfire in cities and towns across the Middle East, images of which appeared on “fair and balanced” news networks, but were deemed too inflammatory for broadcasts on traditional left-leaning channels. In Oliver Stone’s otherwise even-handed and excellent film World Trade Center, he portrayed the populations of the Middle East as shocked and deeply sorrowed by the television images of the Twin Towers collapsing, ignoring completely the reality of their celebrations. To have truthfully portrayed Middle Eastern Muslims as happy and gleeful on 9/11 would have implied that millions of people in the world find pleasure in watching America suffer, and thus are to blame for supporting, indirectly or directly, terrorism directed against America and her allies. Americans, ever in denial that anyone could hate something as wonderful as America or its tolerance, prefer instead to seek scapegoats from within, turning on our own in order to vent the anger and thirst for revenge that is considered politically incorrect to direct at those who are actually to blame: Islamic terrorists.

In a Washington Times editorial yesterday, Mike Walker, former acting Secretary of the Army and former Deputy Director of FEMA, waxed eloquent about the need for Americans to maintain vigilance and not to underestimate the threat radical Islam poses to our way of life. Walker, writing of the preferred tactics of al Qaeda, warned “They seek to spread fear, hoping to turn us inward and against each other.” Yet, a mere two paragraphs later, Walker turns inward against American government agencies, blaming the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for neglecting its responsibility to prepare for and prevent terrorist attacks. Walker wrote:

The Department of Homeland Security seems more concerned with passing immigration legislation and not repeating the response to Hurricane Katrina. While this occurs, the terrorist threat, the reason the department was established in the first place, continues to build. Almost six years have passed since the 9/11 attacks, we still have no national terrorism prevention doctrine. Programs continue to be episodic and not based on a plan for prevention. State and local government homeland-security budgets continue to be cut, while daily priorities take precedence.

Capital Cloak has criticized DHS on occasion when warranted and recognizes many flaws within that department, but Walker’s portrayal of DHS as failing in its counterterrorism duties was factually in error and undeservedly singled out one department as a scapegoat. Walker was absolutely correct in his assessment that DHS is greatly concerned with immigration issues and avoiding another Hurricane Katrina fiasco. He was also correct that DHS was created post-9/11 as a response to Islamic terrorism and that after nearly six years there is no “national terrorism prevention doctrine.” However, Walker ignored several important truths about DHS that, had he included them, would have negated much of his criticism.

I have written previously that DHS, despite public perception, is not a counterterrorism agency. Although it was the love-child of the post-9/11 political frenzy to pass legislation reassuring the American people that something was being done about terrorism, DHS was never meant to become the nation’s lead agency in the War on Terror. That distinction has been and continues to be shared between the “terrorism quartet” of the CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSA, with the FBI front and center domestically. DHS has no intelligence operatives or informants, no satellites, no electronic monitoring capabilities; in short, it has no counterterrorism tools whatsoever. None of the agencies who possess these assets are DHS components. They operate either independently or under the direction of other departments, such as Defense or Justice. While these agencies have employees assigned to work with DHS as intelligence liaisons, the level of information sharing between them and DHS is not under DHS’ control. Efforts have been made to improve intelligence sharing procedures and expectations, but the current reality is that DHS relies 100% on other departments and agencies to provide it with intelligence on terrorist activity.

If DHS is concerned with immigration issues, it is because immigration agencies are a significant part of the department, comprising the majority of DHS personnel. Immigration issues are also controversial and politically charged. DHS comes under fire for not “securing the border,” yet the executive branch, which is responsible (through the Justice Dept.) for establishing federal law enforcement priorities, has chosen not to pursue strict enforcement of immigration laws, including deportation, except in campaign years. As I have written previously, law enforcement is restricted in what laws it will enforce by the Justice Department’s willingness to prosecute violations of those laws. If American presidents and their attorney generals do not want to see illegal immigration laws enforced properly, law enforcement must focus its priorities on other laws that attorney generals do want to see enforced. It is not the way it should be, but that is the reality. DHS actively pursues violations according to direction from a Cabinet member and the president. If Walker is looking to lay blame for DHS’ interest in immigration issues, he should lay it at the feet of those who dictate priorities to DHS. Once Congress and the executive branch realize that illegal immigration and border enforcement are national security issues rather than the potential means to legalize a treasure trove of potential voters for political gain, perhaps DHS will be given the proper tools and mandate to halt illegal immigration and locate those already here.

As a former Deputy Director of FEMA, surely Walker must realize that FEMA has nothing to do with “homeland security” and never should have been included in the formation of DHS. The fallout from its handling of Hurricane Katrina, some deserved, some unfairly heaped on FEMA instead of local leaders, has assured that DHS must give an inordinate amount of attention and resources to predicting the only thing more unpredictable than terrorism: the weather. Nothing whips DHS leadership into frenzy quite like a tropical storm that may or may not become a hurricane. There are email alerts, pages, conference calls, and several daily briefings all to warn that a storm somewhere in the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico may one day develop into a hurricane. What is the terrorism nexus with hurricanes? Is al Qaeda sending these storms to batter America? Of course not, but you wouldn’t know it by the near panic that engulfs DHS with the mere mention of the dreaded phrase “Hurricane Katrina.” That DHS has this focus on the weather and determination never again to take a media beating after a major storm is not DHS’ fault. If Walker is looking to turn inward and lay blame, he should lay it at the feet of those who crafted the Homeland Security legislation to include FEMA in a department that was allegedly supposed to tackle weightier issues like terrorism.

Walker wondered why DHS has not created a “terrorism prevention doctrine” nearly six years after 9/11. The answer is quite simple and to a Washington insider like Walker should have been obvious: DHS does not have the resources, departmental mission, or terrorism expertise to oversee the creation of such a doctrine. For such a doctrine to be formulated, debated, edited, and approved, the process currently requires separate participation from a host of departments and agencies, each with its own budgetary and political agendas. DHS is perhaps the world’s largest middleman, receiving intelligence from other agencies, sanitizing it, and then sharing it with state or local officials. For DHS to gain counterterrorism capabilities, some of the agencies listed above who actually do perform counterterrorism functions would have to be moved into the department. Reliance on other agencies to share intelligence did not work very well or often prior to 9/11, and now that the stinging memory of 9/11 has become distant for some in Congress and the executive branch, that inter-agency dependence will inevitably devolve to previous levels of non-cooperation.

When a department or agency is the product of a flawed creation process, should the blame for its shortcomings be heaped upon those within it who merely perform the duties the department has been given? Certainly there have been and will always be human errors that occur in the performance of routine duties in any department, and those errors should be recognized and remedied appropriately. However, when it comes to public and media perception that DHS should be the government’s counterterrorism authority, a dose of reality would be refreshing. DHS’ creation without inclusion of the FBI, the primary agency empowered to investigate terrorism, was akin to building a fire station but choosing not to equip it with fire trucks or staff it with a crew. In the absence of counterterrorism capabilities, DHS naturally turns its attention to immigration and hurricanes as Walker argued, but not because terrorism is a low priority within the department. Effective counterterrorism is simply beyond DHS’ current organizational structure.

Whether DHS should be the lead agency in counterterrorism and be given more capabilities is a matter for debate, but criticizing DHS for failing to be something it was not designed to be contributes little to improving public trust at a time when our confidence and faith in each other as Americans is the one thing al Qaeda cannot destroy with its car bombs and plane hijackings. DHS is not the enemy. President Bush is not the enemy. Congress is not the enemy. Our enemies are radical Islamic terrorists, and they delight in our penchant for self-loathing and our obsession with assigning blame to each other for their actions.

Like a battered wife, we cover up our injuries and blame ourselves for the beatings we receive, searching ourselves for faults or flaws that make us deserve attack, while the bullying perpetrator who relies on violence to intimidate escapes blame or punishment. We, like our British counterparts, are asked not to mention that terrorists are Islamic and the use of the phrase “War on Terror” has been deemed too harsh or belittled as a “bumper sticker.” Sadly, many battered wives blame themselves until the terrible day that the cowardly abuser strikes a fatal blow. Only then is it clear that blame mattered not at all. The priority should have been removal from the threat or better still, removal of the threat.

Walker was right to warn Americans not to turn on one another. He should have set the example by heeding his own warning.

Technorati Tags:
Mike Walker, Homeland Security, DHS, FEMA, FBI, Counterterrorism, Intelligence, National Security, 9/11, Terrorism, Islamic Terrorists, Federal Government, Blame

Newt "Newters" Chertoff's Amnesty Reality

As a privileged recipient of Newt Gingrich’s Winning the Future/American Solutions email newsletters (by privileged I mean free subscription!), I eagerly check my email to peruse Newt’s latest endeavors or to preview where he will be speaking and on what topic each week. This Friday, Newt will speak to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, and his email newsletter contained a preview of his speech. Newt’s emails are long and informative, but I wanted to highlight for Capital Cloak readers one section of his upcoming speech since it will address a topic I have written extensively about over the past two weeks: the proposed McCain-Kennedy-Bush illegal immigration amnesty bill.

Newt’s speech on Friday will be critical of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who, as Capital Cloak previously reported, told USA Today editors that deportations are “not going to happen” and that the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill “bows to reality.” I wrote extensively about the implications and repercussions such an attitude by an important national security official could have, and Newt intends to publicly criticize Chertoff along similar lines. Here is an excerpt from Newt’s speech to be delivered Friday:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff encapsulated this inability to get the job done when he recently said that the disastrous new immigration bill "bows to reality." In other words: It's too hard, so why not concede defeat and give up securing the border and enforcing the law.

But we hire leaders to change reality to fit our values, not to change our values to fit their failures.

I don't know what "reality" Secretary Chertoff lives in, but the reality of the vast majority of the American people is one of growing distrust of their leaders and growing disgust with the ways things are being done in Washington.

We value limited, effective government, but the reality we get is the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.

We value lower taxes and living within our means, but the reality we get is out-of-control spending on congressional pet projects.

We value enforcing our laws, but our reality is a Senate-sanctioned order to keep local police in the dark about the legal status of those they arrest.

…And our reality is the discovery of three terrorists in New Jersey who had been in the U.S. illegally for 23 years and charged 75 times by the police without being identified as having no legal right to be in the United States in the first place.

Newt has a gift for crystallizing conservative voter sentiment on immigration into one sentence, as evidenced by the phrase, “we hire leaders to change reality to fit our values, not to change our values to fit their failures.” Based on Chertoff’s statements and dogged support of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill, it appears he has no intention of even attempting to enforce the currently existing immigration laws, let alone a host of new ones proposed in the bill. The point I made in my previous post on Chertoff’s immigration surrender is not lost on Newt, who likewise concludes that Americans do not want leaders who “bow to reality” before they have actually tried to aggressively enforce existing laws, nor do they want leaders who tell voters that enforcement of laws demanded by voters is “not going to happen.” American voters have a tendency to replace such men with someone who will make it happen.

Recent posts on immigration/amnesty:
McCain Fears Riots if Illegals Deported
Should National Security “Bow to Reality?”
France Doing Job Americans Won’t Do

Technorati: Newt Gingrich American Enterprise Institute Michael Chertoff Immigration Reform Illegal Immigration Amnesty McCain-Kennedy American Solutions

Should National Security "Bow to Reality?"

The old adage “don’t shoot the messenger” is nowhere more applicable than in the debate over the Bush-Kennedy amnesty for illegal aliens bill currently before Congress. Those who oppose President Bush’s “path to citizenship” (amnesty) for an estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens are branded as racists by Latino groups, as nativists lacking compassion, or as fear mongers by the president himself. Latino groups assume that all opposition to illegal immigration reform is directed solely at Mexicans, but that is ethnic vanity. They would like to believe the issue is all about them, but it not. Illegal immigration is illegal, whether the violator is Mexican, Canadian, German, or Tibetan. Of course, due to geographic proximity, the vast majority of illegal aliens are Mexican, but violators should not be allowed to profit from their illegal action simply because they violate in bulk.

The most effective media messenger thus far in the illegal alien immigration debate has been Ann Coulter. Of course, because Coulter is blunt and opposes the proposed “reform” legislation, she is portrayed by the liberal media as a radical hate monger. It is unfortunate that few seem capable of looking beyond Coulter’s biting sarcasm of past columns to discover the gems of logic in her most recent and quite astute assessment of the Bush-Kennedy bill.

Coulter’s column, “Importing a Slave Class,” unintentionally became a forceful rebuttal to comments made later in the day by Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. Let’s examine Chertoff’s statements, and then apply Coulter’s arguments to determine who makes a better case.

Chertoff, in an extensive interview with USA Today’s editorial board on May 23, made some comments that were extraordinary coming from the man charged with protecting homeland security. The most telling remark may have been his criticism of Bush-Kennedy bill opponents for demanding deportations that are “not going to happen.” There it was, in black and white print; Homeland Security throwing up its arms in surrender to 12-20 million lawbreakers and admitting they will not be deported, apparently regardless of whether the Bush-Kennedy bill passes. The following excerpt from USA Today’s report provides a sample of Chertoff’s embrace of amnesty:

Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said, "We are bowing to reality."

He dismissed the argument of Republican conservatives, such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who argue that illegal immigrants will leave if strict enforcement of U.S. laws makes it impossible for them to find a job.

"You're not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they're currently doing," Chertoff said. "If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical."

Bilbray said his idea hasn't worked because "there's been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law."

Chertoff, whose department has staged a number of recent raids that have resulted in mass roundups of illegal workers and sharp protests from religious groups, warned there will be more if the workers don't get a chance to become legal. "We're going to enforce the law," he said. "People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported."

There is a lot in that excerpt to turn one’s stomach, but I will begin with the white flag attitude that deportation is impossible. No one asked Chertoff to deport all 12-20 million illegal aliens overnight, but his response is very clear; if you can’t deport them all, why try to deport any? Remembering that Coulter wrote her column before Chertoff’s interview, here is Coulter’s rebuttal to the notion that deportation is impossible:

…The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens – and fast!

I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" – we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

If it's "impossible" to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy – he must know where they are!

…If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn't we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?

There are a lot of well-manicured lawns in the Metropolitan Washington DC area too, but I am SURE that has no bearing on the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill debate.

I keep hearing President Bush and others claim that this is our best chance for reform, or something similar, but Americans should not accept the “either/or” choice placed before them. Coulter’s point is valid; No one is demanding 100% deportation or overnight deportation. For that matter, everyone hopes for but few expect Homeland Security to identify and catch 100% of the terrorists in America. Americans do, however, expect a 100% effort to do so, and should demand the resignation of anyone who considers less than 100% effort to be acceptable. What Americans have wanted all along is an honest, adequately funded, and consistently applied effort to enforce the illegal immigration laws already in place. What Americans did not request was for someone in Washington to unilaterally decide that it was not in America’s best interest to actually enforce immigration laws. That decision is not Chertoff’s to make, nor is it the president’s responsibility to interfere with a law enforcement function. Does America want a Homeland Security Secretary who thinks his tasks are impossible? Should Homeland Security be in the business of “bowing to reality” or creating reality through determined application of the law?

The number has reached 12-20 million precisely because the government has not enforced existing laws. The goal of law enforcement is often as much to produce societal deterrence as it is to punish individual offenders. By granting previous amnesty (1986) and then not enforcing existing laws, no deterrent was ever applied and now officials like Chertoff are unwilling even to try enforcement. Instead of rolling up his shirtsleeves and going to work, Chertoff wants to roll up his shirtsleeves and wash his hands of that 12-20 million figure.

It has been claimed that there is not enough money to hire additional Customs, Border Patrol, or Immigration and Citizenship personnel to handle any large scale deportation effort. Yet Chertoff is convinced that he could secure additional funds and staff to handle performing 12-20 million background checks in a gradual process to legalize (amnesty) the illegals he claims it impossible to deport. Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed Chertoff and the Homeland Security Secretary made it quite clear that while he is willing to gradually legalize illegal aliens, he will not consider gradually deporting those same aliens:

HH: I know it’s a little more prosaic what I’m getting to, Mr. Secretary, which is you’ve got 12 million applications.

MC: Right.

HH: Who’s physically going to pick them up and handle them? Which department’s going to do that?

MC: We’re going to use…DHS will collect the applications, collect the fingerprints. The process of background checking then will occur in cooperation with the FBI and its databases, our databases, and all the databases that are currently kept in the terrorist screening center.

HH: And have you allocated staff time? I mean, an 11 million, if it’s on the low end, 12 million investigations, 12 million interviews, have you got an analysis of where that’s going to funnel to, and who’s actually going to do that work, because from my time in the government as deputy director of OPM running the securities investigation, it takes days to do a decent investigation, and this is all going to hit at once. I don’t know where the people are.

MC: Well, it’s not going to hit at once. It will hit over a period of time, because there will be an enrollment period. And as I know you know, Hugh, obviously, we’re not going to be doing background checks of the kind that you do for a top security clearance. What we’re going to be doing is running fingerprints and names against various databases, which is a process we currently use, for example, in screening people who get visas to come into the country for all kinds of purposes. So we already do millions of these through our existing processes. There’s no question we’re going to need money to increase the staff and the capability for these 12 million. But I want to put it in perspective by saying that we process 80 million air travelers every year coming through our airports, so we already deal with a very large volume of people that we are screening to let them come into the country legally.

It is incredible that the head of Homeland Security would ask for additional funding and staff to help streamline the legalization process but adopts a “bowing to reality” posture when it comes to enforcement of current laws. Chertoff attempted to cast the debate in compassionate terms, citing examples of federal raids that resulted in a press conference, some token arrests, and news coverage of crying children. Americans should reject this clouding of the issue. Raids and deportations are rare, not because of the negative press or crying children, but for reasons Ann Coulter captured most effectively:

The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.

Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants – unlike you lazy Americans – are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food and health care.

These great lovers of the downtrodden – the downtrodden trimming their hedges – pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but 1) they don't believe that; and 2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.

The Bush administration is busy casting verbal stones at those who oppose the current immigration “reform” bill, but there should be no surprise that Americans are angered by the proposed legislation. The federal government has proven unwilling to enforce existing laws for decades, but now a new bill with new laws will magically be enforced and seal up our borders? Rather than granting amnesty, government should work to earn our trust by securing America’s borders, not just the one with Mexico, and then enforcing laws already in place. “Sanctuary cities” became sanctuaries because local law enforcement encountered illegal aliens, reported them to INS-CBP-ICE, and then waited eternally for a response or sign of interest in taking custody of the alien. When those agencies demonstrated no effort to take immigration status seriously, local governments adopted the same stance.

Illegal immigration, like Iraq, is a difficult national security situation. The president refuses to “cut and run” in Iraq, but amnesty would be to illegal immigration what surrender in defeat would be to Iraq. America can afford neither.

Government Droning Too Much to Media About Drones

American government agencies, facing the constant task of justifying to Congress the need for bigger budgets, frequently tout their importance to national security by disclosing their capabilities and technologies to the media. Such public disclosures, it is believed, improve an agency’s or department’s image, increase recruiting, and help Americans feel more secure. Agencies and departments also hope that widespread media reports of counterterrorism technologies and operations may act as a deterrent to future terrorist attacks, particularly on U.S. soil. This theory has some merit and is based largely on the example of overall crime statistics, which tend to decline sharply immediately after new enforcement methods or detection technologies are recognized by criminals and before they adapt their methodology.

However, the key to such successes is concealing the technologies and strategies from criminals (or terrorists) for as long a period as possible. By gushing to the media about our capabilities in hopes of bigger budgets and public adulation, agencies are hobbling their own counterterrorist efforts and exposing existing holes in our homeland defenses. The Navy phrase “loose lips sink ships” comes to mind as a suggested motto for all agencies and departments involved in the War on Terror.

Two very clear examples of well-intentioned but ultimately dangerous government disclosures to the media occurred yesterday and today, and both involved the ubiquitous unmanned aerial drones (UADs, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs) utilized by the U.S. in various war and terror surveillance operations worldwide. These drones have proven to be one of the most useful and cost-effective intelligence gathering (and covert attack) tools available in the War on Terror.

The first of the two examples of government droning on and on to the media was reported in a USA Today article titled “Drones Could Defend Airports”. The title and the concept of unmanned drones detecting, disabling, or destroying shoulder launched missiles (MANPADs) should bring some peace of mind to America’s air travelers. The use of drones in this manner is a promising system of defense for our airports and should be supported and fully implemented. Yet by publicly reporting plans for continued testing and implementation of a UAD airport defense system, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also providing notice to terrorists worldwide that America currently has no systems in place around our airports to defend against shoulder-fired missiles, which, as the USA Today article mentions, are widely available and inexpensive.

Indeed, such portable and easily concealed missiles have already been utilized against civilian aircraft in several incidents. As I discussed in a previous post, Pakistan cloned American Stinger missile sensors and helped the Taliban equip their SAMs to make them more effective against U.S. and NATO aircraft. An Israeli airliner departing Mombasa, Kenya in 2002 was fired upon by a shoulder launched missile, but the attackers failed to hit their target. A DHL cargo jet luckily crash landed successfully after being hit in one wing by a similar missile in Iraq in 2005. And just today, a cargo plane was rumored to have been shot down by a missile upon take off from Mogadishu, Somalia. According to the State Department, since the 1970s, more than 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by MANPADs.

The potential for such an attack on an American civilian airliner cannot be overstated, yet DHS has now made it officially known that our government is concerned, but unprepared. Terrorists looking for a window of opportunity also learned from the DHS official quoted by USA Today the following useful intelligence information: the official internal DHS name of the project, when and where the airport defense drones will be tested, what technologies the UADs will be equipped with, and an admission that 4 years of testing of anti-missile laser systems mounted directly on jetliners did not produce a workable aircraft defense. Would it not have better served the interests of national security to have completed testing and successfully deployed UAD defenses for our major airports BEFORE making announcements about their existence?

The second example of “loose lips” about UADs by government officials was published in today’s Seattle Times, in the article “Border Drone Spots Suspect in Child Rape”. The article described the effective use of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP, also a DHS agency) UAD equipped with infrared cameras patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona. The UAD camera’s heat sensing infrared lens spotted 6 men illegally crossing the border from Mexico into Arizona, and relayed the images and GPS coordinates to CBP agents monitoring the UAD from a command center. Agents were dispatched to the coordinates and arrested the illegal aliens. The arrest netted a load of smuggled marijuana, but more importantly also resulted in the capture of a felon charged with child rape in the State of Washington. He had been wanted by authorities for more than a year. By all accounts, the use of UADs in this manner is a tremendously cost-effective method for patrolling broad desert expanses near our southern border. According to the CBP spokesman quoted by the Seattle Times, UADs have produced 3,900 arrests and significant seizures of narcotics in the Southwest.

Had the CBP spokesman resisted the understandable urge to “toot the horn” of the CBP, this article would have contained an encouraging example of why UADs are needed and a complimentary account of the CBP’s work. The spokesman, however, allowed enthusiasm for a successful program and a seemingly innocuous media question to override good judgment. It was clear from his response that the spokesman was asked a general question about how many drones are in operation and in what areas, as well as a specific question about CBP’s UAD use in the State of Washington. The reporter recorded the spokesman’s reply:

A second aircraft will be launched in North Dakota later this year to monitor the Canadian border. . . . He said there are no plans to have such an unmanned plane patrol the Canadian border in Washington State.

The spokesman thus announced to any terrorist or criminal seeking to infiltrate our borders in remote areas on foot that Canada, not Mexico, offers less risk of detection since there will be no UADs patrolling any part of the northern border until later this year. More specifically, terrorists, who already crossed into Washington State in December 1999 from Canada en route with explosives to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on New Years Day 2000, learned from the CBP spokesman that “there are no plans” to have UADs on that border in the future. A vehicle checkpoint and an alert Customs Inspector foiled the plot to bomb LAX, but the next group will know to walk through the forests with no fear of infrared detection from high above, thanks to a CBP spokesman justifiably proud of the UAD program.

In fairness to the spokesman, the plans to implement UADs on the Canadian border was first reported in January 2007 by the Canadian National Post, which obtained a press release from CBP containing detailed specifications of the UADs to be utilized as well as the location of their operational base and a general time frame for implementation. Why this information was provided to Canadian media instead of remaining known only to the Canadian and American governments is really the crux of the issue. The altitudes at which these drones fly, their relatively small size, and their quiet operational noise levels would have made it unlikely that residents on either side of the border, particularly along the North Dakota border area, would have noticed or paid any attention to them. Instead, CBP, because that is how the Beltway budget game is played, drew attention to the project intentionally.

Perhaps the most effective law enforcement and intelligence deterrent to terrorists and criminals plotting to strike America is the mystique which surrounds our agencies. The more terrorists and criminals know about our methods and technologies, the easier it is for them to adapt, and the less fear they will have of being detected or captured. Hollywood nearly always portrays government and law enforcement agencies as villains, but it also portrays these agencies as possessing a myriad of super secret advanced technologies and capabilities. This actually acts as a somewhat valuable deterrent to crime and terrorism in America, since fiction and reality are so skillfully intertwined that it is nearly impossible for the average American (or foreign national) to accurately estimate our capabilities. In many cases that is very helpful, since reality too often relies on budgets rather than threat assessments.

Some foreign militaries, intelligence services, and even terrorist groups possess such drones, but currently the U.S. inventory appears to contain the most sophisticated and most effective models yet developed. Foreign governments that have not developed or acquired their own silent sentinels desperately want them, and terrorists operate in constant fear of being detected and possibly bombed by our drones.

When the War on Terror began, terrorists were only vaguely aware, if at all, of the capabilities of our UADs, and did not account for them in the planning of their personnel and equipment movements. This resulted in successful destruction by the U.S. of terrorist Surface to Air Missile systems (SAMs) and in at least one instance, the assassination of 6 known al-Qaeda leaders bombed by a Predator drone. Likewise, terrorists were largely unaware of our communications interception capabilities, and spoke freely and frequently on their cell phones. Unfortunately, through treasonous internal leaks and willing media exposure, the communications intercepts became front page news and terrorists, who employ their own media monitoring and production staffs, soon realized their vulnerability and the phones went silent. Now they use disposable, prepaid phones and have also embraced encrypted email systems.

Once terrorists realized the dangers posed by UADs, through government “horn tooting” press releases to the media, they began targeting these drones with SAMs and MANPADs, shooting down several in the past few years. In the BBC account linked here, note the details available to the public of the drone’s features, equipment, capabilities, and vulnerabilities. Where did those details come from? What national security purpose was served by making these details available to the media?

Having an open society must also be tempered by being a wise society. Too many details of too many government intelligence and law enforcement agency programs and strategies are made public, for no other reason than to increase their public visibility and budgetary justifications. Publicly announcing what we can and cannot do, and where we are weak and where we are strong invites our enemies to exploit those holes in our defenses. Publishing manuals containing our military doctrines and tactics and later making them available for purchase by the public helps our enemies learn how we think and how we are trained to respond. We should make it more difficult for them to identify those vulnerabilities, rather than announce them to the media. Budgets and agency images will not seem so critical when we suffer another attack on America soil.

Proposals Calling for New Domestic Intelligence Agency Based on MI5 Ignore Similarities with FBI

With every new story about “incompetence” or “intelligence failures” within our federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies, citizens and newspaper editors step forward to cry for a new intelligence agency to be established in the U.S. to replace the FBI as the lead agency for domestic counterterrorism investigations. In the wake of Friday’s released unclassified report revealing that the FBI under reported its use of National Security Letters (an exigent circumstance records request similar to an administrative subpoena), it did not take long for critics, unfortunately including the editors at the Wall Street Journal, to expand the rhetoric beyond the National Security Letter reporting issue and call for a new agency that will magically succeed where they perceive the FBI has failed.

According to the WSJ editors:

This is another fiasco for the FBI, which may simply be incapable of effective counterterrorism. Every independent group that has looked into the FBI--including the Robb-Silberman commission--has found that the agency is failing in that duty. Whatever discipline is handed out for this latest foul-up, the country needs to debate again whether domestic antiterror functions should be taken from the FBI and given to a new agency modeled after Britain's MI5. The FBI's culture of crime-fighting and case-building to win convictions may be incompatible with the prevention and intelligence demands of counterterrorism.

The WSJ editors omitted the important fact that the Robb-Silberman commission, while highly critical of the FBI, did not advocate the creation of a new agency to take over the FBI’s counterterrorism duties. The commission reported that the FBI had agreed to make significant changes to address its shortcomings by 2010, and thus withheld any proposal for a new agency until after 2010. Well into 2007, and with the FBI in the news again for administrative errors, it is unclear what, if any, progress the FBI is making toward restructuring itself before its detractors take the reigns of reform with relish in 2010.

Having experience in these fields, I am fully aware of the shortcomings of the FBI and other federal agencies in the effort to prevent and investigate terrorist activities and further to prosecute Americans linked to terrorism. Mistakes, at times grave but usually unintentional, have been and continue to be made by the FBI and other agencies. That is the nature of human intelligence and law enforcement, and these mistakes certainly deserve attention and scrutiny in the spirit of suggested improvement. However, to point to MI5 as the panacea model that will solve America’s domestic counterterrorism woes ignores two critical points: First, MI5 has experienced many of its own frequent and very public failures; second, forming new government agencies is almost never the answer to a governmental reform problem.

There are numerous examples of MI5 intelligence errors, including the infamous "Cambridge 5," a massive internal penetration of MI5 by Cambridge University students recruited and handled by the KGB. MI5 was also criticized for a perceived failure to warn Britains of the targeting of entertainment spots in Bali prior to the 2002 Bali bombing that killed 24 British Citizens, among many other victims. MI5 critics likewise believed the agency should have made connections among individuals later discovered to have perpetrated the London Tube bombings in July 2005. One of the bombers reportedly visited Britain just weeks prior to the attack but was never placed under surveillance by MI5. For a fascinating look into MI5 that FBI critics should examine is Spy Catcher: The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer. These are merely two examples out of many in which MI5 was criticized for precisely the same shortcomings the FBI waded through after 9/11.

Perhaps MI5’s organizational structure is superior, but its efficacy is questioned by the British government and press with nearly as much zeal as the FBI experiences from Congress and the American media. It is a truism among intelligence and law enforcement personnel that your mistakes are front page news, while your successes are met with a shrug of the shoulders. Failure is always a bigger story than success. If you successfully identify and prevent an attack, you are simply told “thanks for doing your job.” If you make a mistake, the vultures immediately squawk for your duties to be given to someone else, preferably a new entity with no record of failure or success to tarnish its pristine reputation.

We have been down this road before, as recently as post 9/11 with the establishment of the behemoth Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS was ostensibly formed to collectivize agencies possessing national security and emergency response capacities and duties to “secure the homeland,” and improve coordination and efficiency of responses to national emergencies. Has it worked? Not according to a recent poll that declared DHS to be the least trusted agency within the U.S. government by the American people. Interestingly, public trust in the FBI, CIA, and NSA, despite media excoriations of FBI terrorist investigations, the CIA’s failure to locate and kill Bin Laden, and the alleged threat to privacy posed by the NSA domestic surveillance program, is higher than trust in DHS. Why the lack of confidence in DHS? The Department’s size, with 20+ agencies and 170,000+ employees, may influence skeptics to conclude it will never integrate fully or that some components have no direct role in securing the homeland, such as FEMA. Yet it seems clear that the more significant reason may be that Americans are wary of any new government department or agency (DHS was created in 2002) and are more apt to place their trust in agencies that have track records, even records rife with mistakes, to no track record at all. How long would it take for a new domestic intelligence agency to become operational and engender public trust? How many attacks will occur during such a fundamental reorganization?

Therein lays one of the significant arguments against the formation of a new American MI5 intelligence agency to take over the FBI’s domestic counterterrorism functions: Where will this new agency obtain its analysts and field operatives? What will be new about it other than its name and reporting structure? The learning curve in these fields is too long and the War on Terror too pressing to afford sufficient time for an entirely new agency to select inexperienced personnel and train them according to the new agencies techniques and standards. If such an agency were created, there would be an immediate need for experienced intelligence analysis staff, and the applicant pool would consist of the same analysts currently functioning within the FBI, CIA, and DHS. Through no fault of their own, these intelligence staffers would bring established organizational cultures, information sharing issues, and varying work ethics, thereby ensuring that the “new” agency would be anything but new in its ideas or preconceived intelligence estimates.

What the WSJ editors and others who have called for the creation of a new intelligence agency neglect to recommend is the need to give equal scrutiny to the possibility of restructuring the FBI by reassigning jurisdiction over many financial crimes to other federal agencies that are currently smaller and limited in scope, such as the Treasury Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), and others. Thousands of FBI agents currently investigating white collar crimes could be freed from those cases and assigned to higher priority investigations, specifically domestic counterterrorism. If it is true, as a Washington Post contributor argued in 2005, that the FBI is 90% criminal investigation and 10% intelligence, then it would make more sense to move those percentages closer together and not lose whatever level of expertise exists in that 10%, than it would to simply take the 10% away and create yet another government agency. If after such a restructuring and narrowing of focus the FBI continued to prove inadequate to the task of counterterrorism, then a proposal to reassign such duties to a different or new agency should be considered.

Under reporting the number of National Security Letters it issued and inadequately training agents on what information could or could not be requested with the letters were clearly internal administrative errors. The Inspector General’s report declared that such errors were not criminal in nature and there was no evidence that any privacy rights were violated by the FBI’s issuance of the letters or the subsequent under reporting of the number issued. Yet critics are always poised to call for the most drastic remedies, and often use the symptoms of minor illnesses like under reporting to suggest the patient, in this case the FBI, has no hope for recovery. If occasional error or failure to connect the intelligence dots were considered symptoms of terminal illness in an agency, no intelligence or investigative agency, foreign or domestic, would have hope for survival, as all appear similarly afflicted.

The WSJ editors, though, did make an important statement regarding any proposed remedy to the FBI’s shortcomings:

The worst outcome would be if Congress limited the administrative subpoena power in order to punish the FBI. By all accounts, these "national security letters" have proven to be useful in tracking potential terror threats. In particular, the Bush Administration shouldn't now give in to any such demands merely to appease Congress or save the jobs of Messrs. Mueller or Gonzales.

Spy the News! concurs with this opinion and advises readers to watch the development of these issues, as Bush administration critics will seize upon National Security Letters as an alleged menace to personal and corporate privacy rights. The National Security Letters work, and despite media stories with alarmist headlines insinuating that the FBI was “snooping” on Americans and intentionally not reporting it, the only remedy that is needed in this case is an organized reporting system that tracks the number of letters issued and assures that agents are properly trained in what information they can and cannot obtain with this valuable tool in the War on Terror.