Intelligence Reform Bill

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I'm curious what everyone thinks about the latest big issue.

 

Honestly I think it's one of the worst pieces of legislation I've ever seen and I'm frankly appalled at both parties for supporting this. I don't see how an added layer of red tape does anything but further muck up the whole process. It seems they took the reports to heart and then decided that more government would be the answer.

 

I don't really have an answer but I don't think more red tape is the right answer.

[LatinAssasin 0]

Can someone explain to me exactly what this bill will do? All I heard is that instead of having all the seperate agencies working seperately (CIA, FBI, etc) that now they'll have one central 'office' so to speak, to increase communication between all the different agencies.

 

If that's all it is, then I think it's good. I dont know any details though, so if there's something I dont know, please fill me in.

[Guest Cerebus]

I've written about this.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The fact illegals can still get driving licenses tells me all I need to know about this...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I agree and the fact that racial profiling still won't be allowed turned me off even more to the bill.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Please tell me you're kidding. Then what was the point of this stupid thing?

 

"We're going to be tough on terrorism, but not so tough as to hurt anybody's feelings."

 

Oy, vey...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

To add an extra figurehead into the whole mix of things.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I had a post on The Wisdom Blog about this bill as well. Check my sig for the link to TWB.

[NoCalMike 0]

The fact that our government is testing that lame "Star Wars: Nuclear missle defense system" next week, is an indication to me that they simply don't understand terrorism of the future, or that maybe they just want to stand around and marvel at the capabilities of useless technology.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

The fact that our government is testing that lame "Star Wars: Nuclear missle defense system" next week, is an indication to me that they simply don't understand terrorism of the future, or that maybe they just want to stand around and marvel at the capabilities of useless technology.

I'd actually say it's more of a mix of the two, despite my thinking that the last part of your post is supposed to be sarcasm.

 

The military-industrial complex winds up using American resources on outdated and/or unnecessary weapontry while leaving the actual people involved in such a process without the proper equipment to fight a war. Chalk that one up to both the National Security Council and Congress, as between the two, they determine both which weapons to order and the budget for said projects.

 

Funny how that works out.

 

I still don't think the Administration has any clue as to truly fight the war on terror. I mean, seriously, doesn't it just sound a little too much like containment policy? And we all know how that turned out...

 

--Ryan

...sure, the Cold War ended, but containment policy was shown not to work during the 1950s-1970s...

[NoCalMike 0]

Not to mention the cost of this test is supposedly $85 million

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What would be a better way to fight the War on Terror?

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm seriously asking this.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

To be honest, I'm not entirely certain of a better way to do things.

 

I THINK that promoting an educational and cultural exchange between two nations will help promote better relations between them. I also think that being able to exchange ideologies in a free manner helps to present a better path to peace. Seemingly, the United States is using the same mentality that FAILED during the Cold War: if you're not with us, you're against us. Look at the entire period from 1948 to 1973. The system was flawed.

 

It took many years of work by both Carter and Reagan (who used different philosophies) to end the Cold War. Both liberal and conservative internationalism prevailed in the end. However, it took negotiation, rather than war, to end things.

 

Now, I'm not comparing the spread of communism to terrorism, as one is an socioeconomic system while the other is well, to quote Mike, subhuman. But what I will argue is that I think that a better exchange in both culture and education will need to happen in order for anything to happen in the Middle East.

 

Well, that and getting some of the other Arab countries in the area on our side through diplomacy, because they still hate us for siding with Israel in the 1950s.

 

--Ryan

...Another day and just sounds the same...

[NoCalMike 0]

What would be a better way to fight the War on Terror?

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm seriously asking this.

Well I dunno about you, but arabs that live in caves do not seem likely to be launching nuclear missles anywhere. Even if they get their hands on Nukes and the proper way to handle and transport them, I seriously doubt it will be conducted in such a way that a ballistic missle system could protect. I think we as a people(not just americans, but everyone) have to come to the realization that if nuclear war ever started, we just have the bite the bullet and die gracefully. I mean the thought of nuclear missles launching all over the place, and having a system in place that MIGHT knock down every 3rd warhead is not kind of heart-warming scenario.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

What would be a better way to fight the War on Terror? 

 

I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm seriously asking this.

Well I dunno about you, but arabs that live in caves do not seem likely to be launching nuclear missles anywhere. Even if they get their hands on Nukes and the proper way to handle and transport them, I seriously doubt it will be conducted in such a way that a ballistic missle system could protect. I think we as a people(not just americans, but everyone) have to come to the realization that if nuclear war ever started, we just have the bite the bullet and die gracefully. I mean the thought of nuclear missles launching all over the place, and having a system in place that MIGHT knock down every 3rd warhead is not kind of heart-warming scenario.

Sorry, I wasn't referring to the Star Wars missile defense when I asked that question...I think it's crap already.

 

I was referring to Wildbomb's quote about the administration not knowing how to fight the war on terror.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Well I dunno about you, but arabs that live in caves do not seem likely to be launching nuclear missles anywhere.

Like Iran and North Korea?

[Guest Cerebus]

Here is another excellent link:

 

The compromise legislation approved by the House yesterday in response to the Sept. 11 commission's findings represents a historic reordering of the $40 billion intelligence community.

 

But some experts say it is not at all evident how, or even if, the changes would help America's spies obtain secrets and aid analysts in determining the intentions of terrorists bent on striking again or worrisome nations developing weapons of mass destruction.

 

The most significant changes target the top of the intelligence bureaucracy, rather than the field officers, agents and intercept operators who do the work of recruiting spies, penetrating organizations or finding and disrupting plots in motion.

 

Proponents of the legislation and their allies among the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks had grown frustrated by the lack of accountability within intelligence agencies. That is why the bill designates one person -- a new director of national intelligence -- to be accountable to the president and the American public.

 

But the new chief would not be directly in charge of any operations -- not covert actions, the CIA station chiefs around the world, the army of analysts whose job is to connect the dots, or the operators of high-tech collection systems that contribute so much these days to finding and disrupting terrorist plans.

 

The new director also would not have total control over the Defense Department collection agencies, mainly expensive satellite and eavesdropping systems, which provide three-quarters of the country's military and international intelligence.

 

There are other complications. The new director would have competition for the president's ear. The director of a new national counterterrorism center would be a presidential appointee who would report directly to the president on counterterrorist operations.

 

This new player is confounding to intelligence experts trying to see how all the new pieces would fit together with the existing system and whether the changes would make anyone safer.

 

"Have they created a stronger, central, senior person in charge? It is not clear to me that they have," said Winston P. Wiley, a former senior CIA official and terrorism expert. "It's not that budgets and personnel are not important, but what's really important is directing, controlling and having access to the people who do the work. They created a person who doesn't have that."

 

The bill says the new director would "monitor the implementation and execution" of operations, a vague description that has perplexed intelligence officials scurrying to digest the legislation.

 

The director would have control over the national intelligence budget, but not the roughly 30 percent that covers military intelligence operations. That would remain primarily under Defense Department control.

 

The new intelligence director also would be responsible for ensuring that each agency knows what other agencies know and for establishing a list of intelligence priorities The biggest targets of this restructured intelligence system -- al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents -- are stateless enemies who have proved elusive to the traps of traditional espionage tradecraft. Other major concerns most likely will be Iran, North Korea, China and Syria.

 

Proponents of the legislation argue that, even without direct control, the intelligence director would set the strategic priorities and then ensure the individual departments are on track in pursuing them. "He sets targeting priorities, has the budget power to direct agencies to obtain intelligence and to order the analysis" of priority groups, countries and issues, said one congressional official involved in writing the legislation.

 

Combined with the changes in human intelligence collection and analysis underway at the CIA, Defense Department and other intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress's intent was to "complete the job that's been done piecemeal" by handing ultimate responsibility to one person, he said.

 

The Sept. 11 commission concluded that there had been serious lapses in coordination of U.S. intelligence leading up to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and that the current director of central intelligence, who also runs the CIA, is too focused on agency operations and does not exercise the authority needed to coordinate operations throughout the government.

 

Among the other provisions, the bill establishes an intelligence directorate at the FBI, and mandates training of a cadre of FBI agents dedicated to domestic intelligence. That idea is meant to address the fact that most FBI agents are trained to gather evidence relevant to making criminal cases, rather than information that might lead to uncovering terrorist plans.

 

The legislation also funds a package of homeland security measures to bolster transportation safety and border security. For example, the bill calls for developing guidance for a biometric identification technology to screen foreign passengers and mandates a new airline passenger screening system.

 

It also mandates that the federal government -- in most cases the State Department -- undertake a host of measures to address the causes of terrorism abroad. Those measures will include creating a "democracy caucus" at the United Nations, increasing funding for rule-of-law and educational training in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and expanding exchanges with the Muslim world.

 

Senior intelligence officials and even some legislators who supported the legislation are not sure how the long-delayed measure would work in practice.

 

"It's a black hole we're looking into," one U.S. intelligence official said.

 

"There are a lot of questions, and they are inevitably going to be resolved in practice," said a senior administration official who will be involved in melding the old and the new structures.

 

To ensure a separation from the CIA, the bill permits only the intelligence director to share space at the agency's Langley headquarters, now called the George H.W. Bush Center for Intelligence, until October 2008, when the current president's term is almost up.

 

Two things of note. One, the 9/11 Commission have become the new Apostles, their report the new Gospels, and the MSM (Copyright 2004 KKK Inkkkorperated) is their new soap box. If the 9/11 Commission and their report suggest it, how can it be bad? That's stupid and dangerous.

 

Second, it should be noted that while I think it was a good thing it got delatyed, in order for people to actually LOOK at the bill more closely, the reason that it was bottled up was idiotic. Not that immigration shouldn't be looked at, but why the hell does everything need to put in one big bill? The longer a bill is, more stuff, often frivolous and pork-barrel related, fits inside and that's bad.

 

All in all, this is too bad. It would have been nice to seen a total bottom-up review and rethinking of our intelligence capacity. Now that the bill is passed the "controversy" is over.

[NoCalMike 0]

I still don't understand why people take the 9/11 comission all that seriously considering they agreed to supress criticism of Bush until after the election. I mean I am sorry but whatever they know should be a part of the public record immediately considering it should be an important factor in voting.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Sigh. To eliminate an enemy there has always been one and only one way. Make them your friend. Plain and simple. It's only idealism if you don't try.

[Guest Cerebus]

I still don't understand why people take the 9/11 comission all that seriously considering they agreed to supress criticism of Bush until after the election. I mean I am sorry but whatever they know should be a part of the public record immediately considering it should be an important factor in voting.

Uh what? If you're talking about the stuff blacked out, that was by ORDER of the White House. Nobody on the Commission wanted it. And it came out in July BEOFRE the election.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Sigh. To eliminate an enemy there has always been one and only one way. Make them your friend. Plain and simple. It's only idealism if you don't try.

I invited Mohammad over for coffee but he showed up with some explosives strapped to him, so I pretended I wasn't home.

 

I feel so guilt-ridden now...

[Guest Cerebus]

2 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 1 Anonymous Users)

1 Members: A MikeSC

 

Welcome back.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

You can take the poster out of TSM, but you can't take TSM out of the poster...

[Guest Brian]

Mike's on a lot, he just doesn't post. He's not going cold turkey.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Then what's the point?...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Because, well, rehab's for quitters.

 

Evidently, Mike has no quit left in him. The fire still burns...

 

--Ryan

...I could go for a thread where someone would bicker with me about shit...