Why do we need 77 agencies each competing for turf?
Wouldn’t just FBI and CIA be sufficient?
For the most part, yes. But it might not be just that. It is a power and money grab that the FBI may be saying NO to.
Looks like they got a whiff of the "Aspen Report."
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/HS-HPSCI-hearing-011812.pdf
Select quotes...
The growth of our expectations of domestic security, and the evolution of threats away from traditional state actors toward non-state entities -- drug cartels, organized crime, and terrorism are prominent examples -- suggest that the DHS intelligence mission should be threat agnostic.
(Everyone is suspect.)
In English it is saying "non-international." (hold that thought) Then they try to create the impression that there is a "gap" in the current intel apparatus.
In an age of budget constraints, pressure on DHS to focus on core areas of responsibility and capability -- and to avoid emphasis on areas performed by other entities -- may allow for greater focus on these areas of core competency while the agency sheds intelligence functions less central to the DHS mission. Analysts and managers in Washington’s sprawling intelligence architecture often speak of the value of competitive analysis -- analysts at different agencies, for example, looking at similar problems to ensure that we miss no new perspective, no potentially valuable data source."
Well, we certainly would not want that, lets go with a single source of information that is not questioned!
There remains room for this type of analysis, (Well that's mighty big of `em) but there are enough agencies pursuing the terrorist adversary to allow DHS to build a new analytic foundation that emphasizes data, analytic questions, and customer groups that are not the focus for other agencies. Analysis that helps private-sector partners better understand how to mitigate threats to infrastructure, for example, should win more resourcing (MONEY) than a focus on all-source analysis of general threats, such as work on assessing the perpetrators of attacks. Conversely, all-source analysis of terrorist groups and general terrorist trends should remain the domain of other intelligence agencies.
So, the blanket label of "terrorism" is used to justify this power grab. Above, terrorism is referenced as "non-state" i.e. international, to prove there is a gap in intelligence gathering. Below, there is a reversal of this in the "understand overseas terrorist incidents and translate them into analysis for the US."
This new approach to intelligence (new and improved!) -- serving local partners’ requirements, providing intelligence in areas (such as infrastructure) not previously served by intelligence agencies, (duh) and disseminating information by new means -- reflects a transition in how Americans perceive national security. For this reason, state/local agencies, as clients for DHS intelligence, should also be involved in the development of requirements for what kinds of intelligence on emerging threats would be most helpful, from changing tactics for smuggling aliens into the United States to how to understand overseas terrorist incidents and translate them into analysis for the US.
What part of "not previously served" did they not understand when they wrote "providing intelligence in areas (such as infrastructure) not previously served by intelligence agencies,"
Throughout the document there is the pervasive intrusion into state and local law enforcement agencies. there are no less that twelve direct references to this.
Local private sector (1)
Local partner (5)
local agency (3)
local police agency (1)
localized (1)
And they will "help" with the screening, hiring and training of all those "interfaces" with the State and local P.D's.
That is not the end of it. They want in on the private sector as well.
There are eight references to "private" with six as "private sector" and one each to "private partnership" and "private."
And here is the money quote... DHS customers will require information with limited classification; in contrast to most other federal intelligence entities, DHS should focus on products that start at lower classification levels, especially unclassified and FOUO, (For Official Use Only).
Unclassified and FOUO.
And that means ALL unclassified data. Credit cards, phone records, DOT info, school records, medical, internet, email, commercial business data, E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G that would normally require your permission or a warrant.
Nice huh?
Perhaps the FBI got wind of an effort by little bammy's crew to go down that road. What with his monstrous E.O. expanding the Emergency Powers to "in peacetime and in times of national emergency" it is quite plausible.
Perhaps the FBI did not want their REAL intel being thrown in the pot with Unclassified and FOUO.
Perhaps someone in the FBI just said "OH HELL NO."
.