Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

yet been made adequate. Turf fights prevent the trend coming toward fruition in the imagery area.

In clandestine human intelligence activity, the CIA's Directorate of Operations has long had the authorities, it seems to me, in place to be a national manager if it really wanted to, but it never has shown much interest. It does its own thing by itself and has been more competitive with the Defense Department's clandestine efforts than sponsoring them the way the NSA deals cooperatively with the service cryptologic elements in the SIGINT world.

As long, I think, as the DCI is double-hatted as both the Director of Central Intelligence and the Director of CIA, it's difficult if not impossible for him to stand above the community and to carry through the creation of the fully empowered national managers for all three of these collection disciplines.

Now, turning to the second issue, getting more intelligence for the dollar, the DCI is the program manager for all these budgets. And there's a lot of power in that. I'm not sure that you have to write a new statute here. I think the DCI can exercise a lot more authority than I've ever seen any of them do. But he's blocked, to some degree, by a very powerful set of legacies, dating back to 1947 and the creation of the CIA, which does not want to see this authority used effectively in the sense that I have described it.

Since he lacks national managers in each of these discipline areas, and also for counterintelligence, which I'll turn to later, he doesn't have anybody who can rigorously relate inputs to outputs in each of these areas. His executive management organ, which I believe today is called the Intelligence Executive Committee, includes most of these senior managers.

But when that body meets, there's not a single person in that room who can say I have the program management, not necessarily budget execution, which is quite different, but program management authority from top to bottom in this discipline.

And, therefore, he cannot use the system of planning program budgeting system which was introduced in the Defense Department in the 1960s and has been there ever since, which takes line-item budgets-belt buckles, rifles, ships-separates them out, puts them behind missions, so that you can have some view of what the connection is between dollar inputs and intelligence collection outputs. I think if there were three collection managers with full program authority, then they could be directed and I think compelled to present a budget to the DCI which shows the effects of various cuts in these disciplines. I'm leaving aside how you do this for analysis, but it's more or less the same.

The biggest stumbling block to achieving this kind of manager system is the National Reconnaissance Office. As a procurement organization, not an intelligence organization, it spends a large amount of money allocated for signals intelligence and for imagery intelligence, thus preventing the Directors of the National Security Agency and the National Imagery and Mapping Agency from being able to trade off NRO projects against other projects in each of those disciplines, which they are only in the position to know what the tradeoff would be, because they've got an information base the NRO doesn't.

And as long as this is the case, we will still have quite good intelligence, but there will be a considerable waste in input resources. In other words, if you want to improve the efficiency here I've looked at this thing for a long time-that is the single thing that would make it possible to make gains. It won't ensure it.

Finally, the third issue is counterintelligence. I think it's in the worst shape of all. Five organizations run counterintelligence operations in the government, with no overall orchestra-conductor of the operations-the FBI, the CIA, and the three military departments.

The parochialism, fragmentation and incompetence in all are difficult to exaggerate. This has become publicly clear, I think, to anyone following the reporting on the FBI and the CIA over the past several months. It is not new. It has long been the case, right back to World War II and through the Cold War, when the NKVD ran over us like an NFL football team over a Division III football team, in the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, right on down the line.

The combination and fragmentation leaves openings between the organizations which hostile intelligence operatives exploit. And also the lack of counterintelligence skills ensures a dismal performance. And terrorists are very much like spies. They come through the openings.

The skills problems that are most troubling to me here derive from mixing law enforcement and counterintelligence. Spies will always beat cops. They are a different animal. It is like asking the cops to do the counterintelligence business is like sort of switching the personnel on the New York Yankees with the New York Giants and let the football players play baseball and the baseball players play football. They both have their competence. I don't mean to degrade any. These are just not very compatible talents. And as long as they are merged together, we will not have significant improvement of this area.

Therefore, I think the first step, if you really want to create this capability, is to create a counterintelligence organization which comes largely out of the FBI, leaves it doing its law enforcement business in the fullest sense it always has. I'd call it a National Counterintelligence Service, and I would put it under the DCI, but I would give it operational or oversight into the counterintelligence efforts of the CIA, the Army, Navy and Air Force.

And then it would be in a position to be held responsible for a comprehensive counterintelligence picture. There is no place you can get a comprehensive intelligence picture. And you will not get one by fusion center analysts. You will have to be able-you'll have to run both decentralized activities with oversight and then selective bringing back for centralization. So centralization alone is not the solution here.

Now, the proposal has sometimes of late been called the MI-5 model or solution. What I'm proposing is somewhat different. First, an NCIS, as I see it, would have oversight, as I said, over CIA and the military services, which I don't think MI-5 does over MI-6 and the defense ministry in Britain.

Second, I would not give it arrest authority. It doesn't need arrest authority. Counterintelligence is not security and it's not law

enforcement. Counterintelligence is intelligence about the enemy's intelligence. It's an operations activity to use that intelligence.

The FBI might be the agency to use it to go make the arrests and provide the evidence for prosecutions, but the business of locating spies, finding out what they're doing, understanding patentable collection, terrorist infiltrations, et cetera, can be primarily an intelligence operation.

Then the task, if you-I can see that after that was put together, then the DCI would have the responsibility to make sure it provides this kind of counterintelligence information to the agencies that need it-Homeland Security, the Defense Department, the President, the State Department and others.

Now, let me sum up briefly. I see three major reform directions. First, separate the DĈI from the CIA, and at the same time create three national managers, which will mean you will have to do something, if they're going to have program authority, about the NRO.

Second, require the DCI, with its new arrangement, to implement a planning program budgeting system for handling the dollars. As I say, you won't get very far on that as long as NRO is funded the way it is. You can keep the NRO; just don't let it come to Congress for its money. Have it go to the NIMA and the NSA and say, do you need this satellite? And if you want to buy it, they'll buy it. If they don't, they don't. And they have to deliver the intelligence. And they get the phone calls if there's an intelligence failure. The head of the NRO does not get these phone calls.

Third, create a National Counterintelligence Service, as I've suggested, under the DCI. I could say more about-I worry about its potential to violate civil liberties and rights, but I think that can be managed by more oversight from the FISA courts as well as from the Congress.

That ends my remarks, and I'll be prepared to fill in the details in the question period. Thank you.

Chairman GRAHAM. Before calling on Mr. Hitz, Chairman Goss has an announcement for his members.

Chairman Goss. I'm advised that we have a 15-minute vote right now, to be followed by a five-minute rule vote. And Members need to get themselves recorded and get back as quickly as possible so we can deal with the time constraints we've got, because additionally we're advised that those going to Hawaii this afternoon, the plane will be leaving earlier than anticipated for the funeral of Mrs. Mink, for anybody who's doing that. So I wanted to let you know we're going to be working through till 1:00, I understand. Chairman GRAHAM. That's correct.

Chairman Goss. Till 1:00, and we want to take advantage of the time. Thank you.

Chairman GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hitz.

Statement of Frederick P. Hitz, Lecturer of Public and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, before the Joint Intelligence Committee of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives investigating the events leading to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Thank you for inviting me to appear today. I want to talk about three disparate but connected subjects related to the way the U.S. Government goes about collecting and processing intelligence information about terrorism and terrorists. The first deals with the increasing overlap in missions between the CIA and the FBI in pursuit of the terrorist threat. The second points to several obvious ways in which statutory authority underlying the charter of the intelligence agencies to operate in this sphere must be changed to reflect the new reality. Finally, I should like to comment as a university lecturer on the appeal or lack thereof of government service to the current generation of university graduates, and what we might do about that. We all agree that terrorism will challenge the United States in some fundamentally different ways from national security threats in the past and we want our best and brightest to be drawn into this effort.

First, some scene-setting. In this short review, I am indebted to my colleague, Greg Treverton of RAND, who made remarks on this subject recently at the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies in Ottawa. Mr. Treverton pointed out that in the struggle against terrorism, old-fashioned distinctions between the roles of intelligence agencies such as CIA, and law enforcement such as the FBI, simply do not work. The notions that intelligence work in this area means secret, overseas and designed for the edification of policymakers exclusively no longer obtains. On the contrary, in counter terrorism operations, the CIA may be held to the evidentiary standards of the court room in terms of the

quality of its reporting. The FBI is increasingly being tasked to obtain intelligence information before the perpetration of a terrorist act, rather than merely piece together what happened and who did it after the fact. Finally, law enforcement is being challenged to meet the intelligence needs of policymakers, as well as prosecutors and the courts, and do it over the broad range of challenges that a war on terrorism entails rather than on a caseoriented basis which has been their method of operation heretofore.

This is a tall order of change for the CIA and FBI and in many ways represents the reworking of a lifetime of habits which will not happen overnight. Little wonder there has been so much talk of "connecting the dots". Considering the traditional core missions of CIA and the FBI, there have heretofore been strong reasons in both agencies never to connect the dots between them. Grand jury secrecy and prosecutorial fiat limited what FBI agents could say to others about current cases; and “need to know” and the principle of compartmentation inhibited the intelligence agencies. In addition, the National Security Act of 1947 specifically prohibited CIA from exercising "domestic law enforcement powers". Finally, the FBI and CIA have a fifty-five year history of intense rivalry and suspicion to overcome. J. Edgar Hoover sought to strangle the fledgling CIA in its crib in 1947, seeking initially to retain his overseas deployments in Latin America, and to tightly constrain CIA collection and counterintelligence activities in the U.S. even when there was a foreign nexus. As a junior clandestine services officer at CIA in the 1960s, I remember having to go through a single focal point at the FBI to obtain information: S.J. Papich. I'll never forget the name and will always wonder if there ever was such a creature. In those early days there was little chance of developing personal professional relationships and many opportunities for misunderstanding.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »