FBI’s Intelligence Woes Restir Debate On an American MI5
CQ | October 24, 2007
By Matthew M. Johnson, CQ Staff
The FBI is struggling to implement domestic intelligence gathering into its mission, resuscitating the debate about whether to create a domestic intelligence agency separate from the bureau.
While the FBI has elevated counterterrorism operations over law enforcement as a priority and doubled the number of analysts since the Sept. 11 attacks, the agency’s culture has made adopting intelligence missions difficult. FBI intelligence agents are still considered “second-class citizens” within the agency, Thomas H. Kean, chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, said at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday.
“If fighting terrorism is now the highest priority of the FBI, then the role of analysts at the FBI must change dramatically,” Kean said. “Change is happening, but so far very slowly.”
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., suggested it might be time to consider an even more radical change.
“You begin to come to this conclusion of being a real skeptic as to whether this change in culture can be achieved or whether it is desirable to achieve,” Feinstein said. “The FBI is what it is, a great law enforcement agency. It isn’t an intelligence agency.”
While Feinstein hinted it might be time to again consider creating a new agency to handle domestic intelligence gathering, Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, said the committee should think about using its authorizing powers to compel the FBI to make more progress.
Former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, agreed that the FBI has “struggled” with its intelligence gathering role, but said lawmakers should think long and hard about the consequences of separating those responsibilities from the FBI.
Some lawmakers and academics have romanticized notions about how an American version of Great Britain’s MI5 would function in the United States, said Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who served in the House from 1965 to 1999. But in reality, creating a separate domestic intelligence agency would be expensive, would require 10 to 20 years to develop and would not guarantee greater effectiveness, he said.
In response to a direct question from the panel’s top Republican, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri — “Do you still prefer to see the counterintelligence and the law enforcement agencies kept in a single entity?” — Hamilton said, “The answer is yes.”
Under questioning from Feinstein, Kean said “It’s a tough, tough question after five or six years. We believe it’s enormously different, but that trying to get it done is the better alternative right now. But it’s getting a closer and closer call.”
Staff Findings
According to reports compiled by Senate Select Intelligence Committee staff, problems stemming from the FBI’s resistance to change include:
• Field intelligence groups lack clear guidance on their mission, are poorly staffed, are generally lead by special agents and are often surged to other FBI priorities.
• The FBI faces difficulties training, managing and retaining intelligence analysts.
• Only two of 24 senior intelligence officer positions have been filled over a three year period.
• The FBI still has no ability to electronically store and share images and audio files associated with their intelligence investigations.
• Only 60 percent of the counterterrorism supervisory special agent positions have been staffed, and more than 23 percent of the supervisory special agent positions in charge of al Qaeda-related cases remain vacant.
• The FBI’s top counterterrorism position has been held by seven different FBI special agents in the last five years.
