Изображения страниц

ference that intelligence and law enforcement have to address. We had certainly-the largest terrorist events when I started were from Armenians attacking Turks in this country and from Serbs and Croatians warring with each other and Irish Republicans and so forth.

We addressed those and they disappeared from our scene. But they were not truly international terrorists as we now define them. They were people who had ties with the homelands from which they'd come or from which their parents had come. They were fighting old wars. But they were not getting their instructions and their marching orders from overseas.

This is a new experience for us, although, as I believe that Senator Shelby pointed out, the 1993 Trade Center was a wakeup call to do something about it. But it calls for new sets of relationships between CIA, which has been functioning largely abroad, until more recently, with the FBI's participation and expanded legal attache relationships, and the law enforcement responsibilities of dealing with the threat here; and now, of course, the whole concept of a new Department of Homeland Security, which will have to be dealt with in a way that advances and utilizes and magnifies the capabilities of intelligence that we have.

What I'd like to suggest-first of all, I do want to comment on the fact that President Truman, in selecting and asking for a Central Intelligence Agency, did want an agency that did not have an agenda, did not have a Defense perspective, did not have a State Department perspective, but would try to call it as they saw it to be, to provide useful and timely intelligence so that the policymakers, not the CIA, could make wise decisions in the interest of our country.

Now we're confronting what to do about terrorism. The one thought I'd like to lay on the table, and yield to the next participant and answer questions down the road, is this: More than any other kind of threat that I can recall—and I went through the Cold War and the Gulf War and the invasion of Panama and a whole host of challenges during the time I was here-more than any other kind of threat, there is an interrelationship between law enforcement and intelligence in dealing with the problem of terrorism.

At the time I started out, Interpol, the one great international organization for effective law enforcement and cooperation on an international basis, refused to authorize assistance on matters relating to terrorism because it was deemed to be an Article III type offense, which is, "We don't deal with political matters."

We worked very hard. I went to Milan. I went to Luxembourg. We dealt with the United Nations, with Interpol, and finally were able to persuade them that when you take on and injure and kill innocent victims away from the scene of the controversy, under circumstances that would be criminal in almost any other context, this was criminal, and therefore Interpol ought to cooperate and the United Nations ought to cooperate. And we moved that ball way down the road.

But I think it's important to understand it is not just criminal. It is also a matter of very good intelligence. And so it isn't enough, in my mind, to say we need more analysts to deal with the prob

lem. In looking at these situations, we need both investigative capability and intelligence collection capability, as well as those who go through the bits and pieces and fill in the dots.

And I hope that this committee will not come up with a recommendation that tilts in one direction or the other. And you can probably anticipate I do have some views on the fact that the CIA and the FBI are now somewhat liberated from the rules that said stay away from each other that came out of the days of the Church and Pike Committee report, and that they now have a responsibility to work together and share together and not feel they're doing something that's illegal or prohibited, but also to recognize that while we talk about intelligence, investigation develops intelligence and they have to work together.

Both are important to dealing with the problem we now confront. And I hope also that in the rush to judgment, we will remember who we are and that the methods we choose, both for intelligence and for law enforcement, will be consistent with who we are in this country.

Thank you very much.

Chairman GRAHAM. Thank you, Judge Webster. General Odom. [The prepared statement of General Odom follows:]


By William E. Odom

3 October 2002

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear here today.

You have asked me to share my views on the role and responsibility of the Director of Central Intelligence, the Secretary of Defense, and the FBI in dealing with terrorism. This is a very large set of topics. I have submitted a copy of an intelligence reform study, which I chaired and drafted a few years ago, as a comprehensive answer to your questions. The analysis and recommendations it puts forward, in my judgment, are all the more compelling in light of the events of 11 September 2001. I hope that this study, or parts of it, can be used as my written testimony. To be sure, I am also submitting a short additional written statement prepared especially for today to adjust the emphasis in the study to your specific interests in this hearing.

Those interests seem to be directed toward the structure of the Intelligence Community. If I am correct about that assumption, then I am encouraged. While it is important to know the details of how the intelligence failure of 11 September occurred and to assign some responsibility for it, it is far more important to take the opportunity to fix longstanding structural problems within the Intelligence Community. I certainly can offer nothing on the events leading up to 11 September of last

The issues of structural reform are too complex to explain

comprehensively in a short statement, but it is possible to highlight three overarching issues for your attention.

The first concerns the orchestration of the intelligence process within the Intelligence Community. The second concerns management of resources, i.e., getting more intelligence for the dollar, and the third concerns counterintelligence, which is key for dealing with terrorism as well as hostile intelligence services.

Changing technology has produced a general trend in the Intelligence Community that has been delayed and blocked by bureaucratic turf concerns. Each of the three collection disciplines - signals intelligence, imagery intelligence, and human intelligence - is very different. Each needs a national manager to orchestrate collection operations.

The trend most advanced is toward a national manager in signals intelligence. The director of NSA comes close to having the authorities and means to be its national manager for signals intelligence. In imagery intelligence, the director of the NIMA is the proper candidate for that job, but his agency is very new, and his authorities and means are not yet adequate. Turf fights prevent the trend coming to fruition in imagery intelligence. In clandestine human intelligence, the CIA's Directorate of Operations has long had the authorities but shown no interest in being the national manager of the capabilities within the Defense Department.

As long the DCI is double-hatted as the director of the CIA as well, he cannot stand above the Intelligence Community and carry through the creation of fully empowered national managers for all three kinds of collection.

Turning to the second issue, getting more intelligence for the dollar, the DCI is the program manager for all the budgets within the Intelligence Community. This is potentially a very powerful authority, but given legacies within the CIA, dating back to 1947 and earlier, the CIA does not want to see its authority used for more efficiency.

Lacking national managers for the three collection disciplines and also for counterintelligence, the DCI has no subordinates who can rigorously relate inputs of resources to outputs of intelligence. His executive management organ, the Intelligence Executive Committee, includes the senior intelligence managers, but none have the control over programs that allows the DCI to hold them accountable for presenting and "Planning Program Budget" analysis, the kind that has been used in the Pentagon for forty years. If there were three national managers of the collections disciplines with full program authority over the resources spent in their disciplines, they could present a proper program budget to the DCI that shows the effects that various cuts and increases will have.

The biggest stumbling block to achieving this kind of national manager system is the National Reconnaissance Office. As a procurement organization, it spends a large part of the money allocated for signals and imagery intelligence, thus preventing the directors of NSA and NIMA from being able to trade off NRO projects against other signals and imagery projects. As long as this is the case, the waste in intelligence spending will be very large.

Finally, to the third issue, counterintelligence. It is in the worst shape of all. Five organizations run counterintelligence operations with no overall manager - the FBI, CIA, and the three military services. The parochialism, fragmentation, and incompetence are difficult to exaggerate in the US

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »