« Teams | Main | Dual Loyalties Again »

Domestic Intelligence

26 Mar 2007 10:53 am

Speaking of John Edwards (of which I've done too little) and his views on national security (of which I think he's done too little), does anyone know if John Edwards still favors creating a domestic intelligence agency? It was kind of his signature national security proposal just 3-4 years ago. I think this idea could have some merit to it. The absence of a domestic spying agencies doesn't mean we don't have domestic spying, it means that domestic spying is either done illegallly (as in the NSA wiretapping affair) or else ineptly by the FBI which, appropriately, is primarily focused on its core law enforcement mission. I don't take the view that we should be dramatically expanding the quantiyt or scope of domestic intelligence activities in the United States, but I think it makes perfect sense to locate them in a designated agency.

That said, the org chart for intelligence and law enforcement in the United States is so messy that it may not make a difference. The whole thing, though, could really use an overhaul since it's path dependence run amok. One way or another, the Edwards camp should address this subject since a lot of news has been broken about domestic intelligence abuses since he first made the proposal and things look different in that light.

Share This

Comments (19)

I don't know how you could think after what we've seen the last few years that, in the event that we created a domestic spying organization, its mission would remain limited.

Matt, you've really got to be kidding. Civil liberties are taking a beating in this country, but they'd be taking a much worse beating were it not for the fact that most of the career investigators and prosecutors in the Department of Justice who are involved in domestic surveillance have been trained to respect limits and legality. Sure, some of them bend the rules occasionally, but basically DOJ culture respects the rule of law (and there are a critical mass of "good guys" to restrain or report those who are willing to go out of bounds).

If you create a domestic spying agency, especially in the current environment, it will have no culture of restraint at all. That would be a giant leap towards authoritarian rule, transforming the NSA's occasional and illegal forays into domestic syping into standard practice. Again, Matt, what are you thinking?

Again, Matt, what are you thinking?

I'm mostly thinking I'd (a) like to know what John Edwards is thinking since this is his proposal and (b) here some informed discussion of it. I'm not going to start crusading for the plan.

I may be crazy, but I have this instinct that tells me there is actually some merit to having separate intelligence/law enforcement agencies with overlapping missions and a slightly messy org chart. I know there is a downside - confusing jurisdictions, things fall between the cracks sometimes etc. But I think I'd rather have some redundancy and overlap, maybe a little competitiveness that different agencies provide rather than some big monolithic Gestapo where everybody does things the same way and adheres to a single organizational philosophy. I like that the NSA, DIA, CIA (and whoever else) are out there. I like that the Secret Service, FBI, state and local police are out there.

Maybe the analogy doesn't work perfectly, but the AF,Navy and the Marines all fly planes. The Marines and the Army both have infantry echelons, they all have special forces units. And I think that's good that there are multiple centers of expertise for the kinds of missions they perform...

Civil liberties are of paramount importance, but IMO exist in a completely different realm of debate from how the intel/LE services are organized.

What about the idea that domestic spying shouldn't be done at all?

Matt Yglesias, paleocon?

There is an organization in our government that tracks and tries to halt organized crime. It's called the FBI.

"things fall through the cracks sometimes."

Like 9/11?

Which is not to say I necessarily disagree with you. But there is a reason why disorganized intelligence agencies were suddenly an issue in 2004.

But there is a reason why disorganized intelligence agencies were suddenly an issue in 2004.

Except that, even with the disorganization, if policies had actually been followed, 9/11 doesn't happen.

You've written 25 posts since approximately 11 a.m. on Friday! Take a rest, man.

"What about the idea that domestic spying shouldn't be done at all?"

Domestic spying is essentially how big mob bosses get taken down. Without it, you'd never get them.

I do see a potential advantage of seperating domestic spying from other law enforcement activities. If the spies are essentially techno-geeks and lawyers, only concerned with the practicality and legality of what they are doing, they have no incentive to trample people's rights. Law enforcement people, even those with the best of intentions, have such a motive. Leaving the spying up to the guy who is on the hook to catch a criminal or a terrorist creates a situation where they will be tempted to stretch the rules, or violate them outright.

sure sure SamL, 9/11...fall thru the cracks etc. I guess if you're convinced that it was an organizational problem in the intel services that led to 9/11, then it's a pretty big counterargument to what I wrote. I guess I'm just not sure that's the case.

"What about the idea that domestic spying shouldn't be done at all?"

The problem is that domestic spying, as currently done, is being done sometimes in an extra-legal way, and even when it's legal, doesn't require the kind of judicial oversight that a sane program would require.

There's always going to be domestic surveillance. The thing is to put it under the law, and have those be laws that strike a proper balance to preserve our traditional and constitutional liberties.

There's always going to be domestic surveillance. The thing is to put it under the law, and have those be laws that strike a proper balance to preserve our traditional and constitutional liberties.

Maybe -- maybe! -- we could try to pass such laws now that there's a Democratic congress. But until the Imperial Presidency has had its day in court, lost, and been completely discredited, the potential for abuse would remain.

New agency means new bureacracy, means new building, means new management. This already adds up to millions and millions of dollars and nothing has even been done yet.

We already have the CIA, NSA and FBI. How do you get these intelligence organizations to agree on who will handle what? How do you stop them from interfering with each other?

New bureacracy is seldom the answer. Look at DHS. FEMA and the INS have actually gotten more useless in the new arrangement.

It would be much easier, cheaper and productive to just assign a floor at Langley to domestic spying.

But here's a question: assuming we don't want to move any closer to becoming USSR 2.0, why would we want that to happen?

Njorl nails it:

"I do see a potential advantage of seperating domestic spying from other law enforcement activities. If the spies are essentially techno-geeks and lawyers, only concerned with the practicality and legality of what they are doing, they have no incentive to trample people's rights. "

Yup. There's also the issue that not all useful intelligence is one that will get you a prosecution.

As long as I get a cavity search from Valerie Wilson, I'm happy...

As long as I get a cavity search from Valerie Wilson, I'm happy...

I think she's retired, in case you hadn't heard. Not that this means you can't still dream...

It's so funny how ugly Congress is; this comely middle-aged cougar with a flashy bleach-job sets DC all a flutter. She's a milf, to be sure, but I saw 5 hotter women walking down Powell street in San Francisco this morning.

And like 8 hotter guys.

Create another bureaucracy! That's the solution.

"Illegal" NSA wiretapping? Since when?

Wire. Tap. That Ass.


Comments closed April 09, 2007.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.