Domestic Intelligence   Domestic Intelligence was created in 1908

Subject:LawPrice: Bought3

Share With

Domestic Intelligence

 

Domestic Intelligence was created in 1908. After the September 2001, attacks there was a shift in a different direction. Their mission is to collect, analyze, and deliver foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to America’s leaders so they can make sound decisions to protect our country. The president, law enforcement, policy makers, and the military are the customers.

Domestic intelligence is a term for efforts by a government to obtain information about activities that pose an actual or putative threat to internal security. In authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, domestic intelligence-gathering by the government is a regular part of daily life. Americans raised fear after they became known due the United States domestic intelligence programs of the post-World War II. Many Americans and Europeans put aside fears of government surveillance in favor of a new demand for heightened security.

From 1930’s to 1960’s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) focused on cases of foreign subversion and espionage. the church committee investigation of intelligence abuses in the 1970’s disclosed a series of FBI- along with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and (NSA)- violations of American’s civil liberties. Congress passed a series of reform laws in the late 1970’s including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), to prevent future abuse.

1970’s information about massive domestic intelligence programs became known. Shamrock which involved the interception of telegrams and other forms of communication between 1945 and 1975. Another domestic intelligence/ surveillance program, chaos, the FBI monitored Vietnam War protestors between 1967 and 1972, looking for ties to the Soviets Revelation of these and other activities became known in the wake of the Watergate Scandal, which influenced an attitude among some citizens of suspicion toward the government. The resulting “wall” of bureaucratic obstacles virtually halted the flow of intelligence information provided to domestic law enforcement agencies. The 9/11 Commission highlighted this sort coming as a major impediment to National Security.

During 2002, the U.S. executive legislative branches debated the question of which agency should handle a new domestic intelligence effort. The FBI formally in charge of counter terrorism or the CIA. The FBI and the CIA would work together in the new unit.

Unlike many nations, the United States does not have a dedicated organization focused on domestic intelligence collection. Although the FBI is the principal domestic intelligence agency, the CIA and DOD, also play limited domestic intelligence roles.

FBI’S Important Role

Although the FBI is the lead agency for domestic intelligence, many other organizations within the government contribute to the collection, analysis, and processing of domestic intelligence. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for sifting through, packaging, disseminating intelligence, and analyzing based on information collected by DHS component agencies. I&A also integrate with the broader intelligence community and uses DHS links to state, local, and private sector partners to share information about potential threats.

DHS is superior with borders, and security. They are not superior with themselves. If complainants keep piling up on them than the FBI takes the final role and has a more powerful authority. (https://www.quora.com)

Since 2005, the FBI intelligence is co-located within the National counterterrorism center. IN 2002 the DOD established the Counter Intelligence Field Activity. (CIFA)

The USA Patriot Act and amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provided our counterterrorism community with enhanced investigative authorities. We recognized our intelligence, law enforcement, and counterterrorism communities to enable them to function more effectively as a whole.

Each step has transformed law enforcement. They are a more effective counterterrorism tool that can be used preemptively, before ay attacks or bombs occur. Because law enforcement remains bound by our laws and constitution there will always be checks on the use of these law enforcement tools. This will ensure they remain consistent with our values and laws. This does not mean their work is done.

Even though they capture and arrest many they take a chance as what might happen in the future. When arresting a terrorist, they balance four critical national security objectives. They disrupt the terrorist-related activity, gather any intelligence the individual may have that can enable us to identify and disrupt additional plots against the U.S., protect the intelligence, including sources and methods, which allowed us to disrupt and identify that individual and his activities, last when the individual possess an enduring threat, provide for the sustainable incapacitation of the individual. Our core principles and values must guide our every step. If not, there can be tension between the objectives at times.

Court’s Approach

Our federal courts are unrivaled when it comes to incapacitating dangerous terrorist. Some argue that the military commissions inherently more effective, therefore it is believed to be more appropriate for trying suspected terrorists. In some cases, there are some advantages of military commissions. Greater flexibility to admit hearsay evidence. Even if there is a no Miranda warning issued confessions can be introduced. They must be reliable or voluntary except if limited circumstances.

We were able to bring the military commission system in line with the rule of law and with our values. This was because the reforms passed by congress. Both the federal court and military can be used to disrupt terrorist's activities and plots, to gather intelligence and to incapacitate them through prosecution.

No case has caused more controversy as Umar Faruq Abdulmutallab. They were charged with trying to blow up a plane over Detroit. The leverage and flexibility that the criminal justice system supplies to gather intelligence, through proffers and plea agreements, before and after arrests. In some cases, even after conviction or sentencing is undeniable. The evolution that began following the 9/11 attacks continues combating terrorism requires a flexible, practical, results-driven approach that is consistent with our values and laws. It has unquestioned legitimacy, demonstrated unrivaled effectiveness, and the flexibility to protect and preserve the full spectrum of our national security objectives. A political transformation is underway in many parts of the Middle East.

Democracies tend to centralize their domestic security functions in response to major terrorism threats. In federal sates one of the first ‘victims’ of exigencies and crises is the principle of federalism. Activities and terrorist networks tend to span geographic areas and legal jurisdictions. This complicates sharing of information and coordinating preventive activities. It makes for many challenges within an institutionally fragmented system.