Intelligence

DATE=9/30/03

TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT

TITLE=U-S-DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE

NUMBER=5-54357

BYLINE=GARY THOMAS

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

CONTENT=

VOICED AT:

INTRO: The heightened threat of domestic terrorism has sparked a new debate about whether the United States needs a new domestic intelligence agency. V-O-A correspondent Gary Thomas reports from Washington.

TEXT: The failure of U-S intelligence to detect the impending attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 is cited as the key reason for the post World War II creation of the Central Intelligence Agency. Now, another intelligence failure, 60 years later, has ignited a new debate over the possible creation of a new domestic intelligence arm.

Former congressman Lee Hamilton is vice-chairman of the independent commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.

// Hamilton act //

In December we will examine reforms by the F-B-I and whether we need a new agency to gather intelligence in the United States, what some have called an American version of Britain's M-I-5.

/// end act //

M-I-5 is purely a domestic British intelligence agency. Most countries around the world have, to varying degrees, a similar kind of domestic intelligence agency, be it an interior ministry or security service. But the United States is different. Here the primary responsibility for domestic intelligence currently rests with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the F-B-I. The C-I-A is forbidden by law to operate in the United States.

Arthur Hulnick, a political science professor at Boston University and a 28-year veteran of the C-I-A, says domestic intelligence agencies are usually separate from the police.

// Hulnick act //

In most countries where they have an M-I-5, a domestic security service, they are not police. They are intelligence people whose job is to gather information and analyze it and, then, if they see a problem, turn to the police for help.

// end act //

Mr. Hulnick says the F-B-I is trying to remake itself to respond to the terrorist threat.

// Hulnick act //

What the F-B-I is trying to do is go from being a police organization to being able to do intelligence gathering and analysis in the same way.

// end act //

But the F-B-I is first and foremost a law enforcement agency. John MacGaffin, former associate deputy director of operations of the C-I-A, says the F-B-I as it is currently constituted is ill-equipped to handle domestic intelligence duties.

// MacGaffin act //

The F-B-I, perhaps in the past with regard to the Communist Party of the United States and other domestic problems, was involved in intelligence gathering. But I do not believe that in any effective way, efficient way, satisfactory way, that the F-B-I is in the intelligence gathering business now. That is indeed the problem.

// end act //

Mr. MacGaffin who, after his long career as a top C-I-A spymaster, was a consultant to the F-B-I, says there are what might be called "cultural differences" between intelligence agencies and police organizations. Intelligence agents try to discover information in order to stop a potential act or plot. The F-B-I, Mr. MacGaffin says, looks to catch people who have committed crimes, such as kidnapping, auto theft, and bank robbery.

// MacGuffin act //

The F-B-I's glorious work was related to reactive things, get the baby back, get the car back, get the bank back. The crime had been done. That reactive approach is no good in today's world. We don't want someone to catch the people who let Sarin gas loose in the New York subway. We have to have a proactive approach, and that is domestic intelligence.

// end act //

Few analysts expect a duplication of M-I-5, which enjoys vast powers in Britain, in the United States. But they add that sentiment for some kind of new agency in the United States can be expected to grow,if the F-B-I is not able to come to grips with the ever-greater demands for domestic intelligence. (signed)

NEB/GPT/RH/FC