Commentary by Dan K. Thomasson
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times
WASHINGTON - As debate heats up over whether the FBI can handle its share of the counterintelligence load, there is growing evidence that the more things change at the bureau the more they stay the same. And that in itself is reason enough to create a new approach based on the British system.
Americans might well ask what the FBI is doing interfering in the Philadelphia mayoral election. Make no mistake: Its continued silence over why it is bugging the office of Democratic incumbent John Street clearly prompts questions. If the mayor is a target of an investigation, then voters should know about it. If he isn't, they should know that, too.
The revelation of these devices has truly roiled the waters, with Street's campaign accusing the Bush administration of trying to undermine the election, an accusation that has no basis but sounds reasonable under the circumstances.
Bumbling in Phoenix
There might be some real conjecture over the advisability of sending taxpayer money to suspected terrorist organizations to determine whether that is what they really are. This performance has been even more dismaying by the fact that apparently some of the money, handed out by the notoriously bumbling Phoenix office - remember, it's the one that ignored an agent's suspicions before 9/11 about all those foreigners taking flying lessons - ended up in the hands of needy orphans.
The Justice Department has been conducting an investigation to determine whether any agents in the office had enriched themselves from the job. But the scheme to determine whether certain "charitable" elements are guilty of aiding terrorists is fraught with potential problems and is just plain stupid.
It is probably legitimate to wonder why the FBI has decided that it needs jurisdiction over all explosives cases on the grounds that they could be terrorist-inspired, leaving the 800 highly trained bomb experts at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives twiddling their thumbs while the FBI sends clerks and other supernumeraries to collect evidence.
Should we forget that the FBI has made hash out of some of the more spectacular explosives cases, including the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing and the first World Trade Center attack and the airliner explosion over Long Island Sound? If Congress, in moving ATF to the Justice Department from Treasury, decided to add the word "Explosives" to that agency's title, why should the bureau move immediately to usurp that responsibility? In opposing the move, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote the Justice Department recently that it doesn't "meet the commonsense test to require FBI agents to run through a fire drill of potential terrorist attack every time a juvenile prankster loads a neighbor's mailbox with firecrackers . . ."
But, of course, the real reason for the move is rooted in the FBI's longtime desire to either absorb or make subservient any federal law-enforcement organization it sees as competing.
The latest FBI director, Robert Mueller, seems nearly as inept as his predecessors when it comes to changing the bank-robber, press-release-happy, share-nothing-with-other-agencies, 10-most-wanted culture of the bureau. The FBI's idea of success still is to catch the criminal after the crime and not before. The agency seems unable to tell the difference between Osama bin Laden and Pretty Boy Floyd.
Dramatic new strategy
That's exactly why the commission named by Congress to recommend steps to prevent 9/11-type attacks from happening again is leaning toward a wholesale, MI5 approach to domestic intelligence gathering.
The new agency concept has received mixed reactions from past directors of central intelligence, two of whom - John Deutch and James Schlesinger - reportedly disagree on the worthiness of the idea. Deutch was for it and Schlesinger against. There also were reports that the commission had run into difficulties getting access to certain information from the Bush administration, but apparently not the White House itself, leaving speculation to center on the FBI or another agency.
The effort to bring some order out of the chaos of American intelligence on both the domestic and foreign fronts is among the more important facets of the war on terrorism. If the FBI can't overcome its own shortcomings, that responsibility should be withdrawn.
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times
WASHINGTON - As debate heats up over whether the FBI can handle its share of the counterintelligence load, there is growing evidence that the more things change at the bureau the more they stay the same. And that in itself is reason enough to create a new approach based on the British system.
Americans might well ask what the FBI is doing interfering in the Philadelphia mayoral election. Make no mistake: Its continued silence over why it is bugging the office of Democratic incumbent John Street clearly prompts questions. If the mayor is a target of an investigation, then voters should know about it. If he isn't, they should know that, too.
The revelation of these devices has truly roiled the waters, with Street's campaign accusing the Bush administration of trying to undermine the election, an accusation that has no basis but sounds reasonable under the circumstances.
Bumbling in Phoenix
There might be some real conjecture over the advisability of sending taxpayer money to suspected terrorist organizations to determine whether that is what they really are. This performance has been even more dismaying by the fact that apparently some of the money, handed out by the notoriously bumbling Phoenix office - remember, it's the one that ignored an agent's suspicions before 9/11 about all those foreigners taking flying lessons - ended up in the hands of needy orphans.
The Justice Department has been conducting an investigation to determine whether any agents in the office had enriched themselves from the job. But the scheme to determine whether certain "charitable" elements are guilty of aiding terrorists is fraught with potential problems and is just plain stupid.
It is probably legitimate to wonder why the FBI has decided that it needs jurisdiction over all explosives cases on the grounds that they could be terrorist-inspired, leaving the 800 highly trained bomb experts at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives twiddling their thumbs while the FBI sends clerks and other supernumeraries to collect evidence.
Should we forget that the FBI has made hash out of some of the more spectacular explosives cases, including the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing and the first World Trade Center attack and the airliner explosion over Long Island Sound? If Congress, in moving ATF to the Justice Department from Treasury, decided to add the word "Explosives" to that agency's title, why should the bureau move immediately to usurp that responsibility? In opposing the move, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote the Justice Department recently that it doesn't "meet the commonsense test to require FBI agents to run through a fire drill of potential terrorist attack every time a juvenile prankster loads a neighbor's mailbox with firecrackers . . ."
But, of course, the real reason for the move is rooted in the FBI's longtime desire to either absorb or make subservient any federal law-enforcement organization it sees as competing.
The latest FBI director, Robert Mueller, seems nearly as inept as his predecessors when it comes to changing the bank-robber, press-release-happy, share-nothing-with-other-agencies, 10-most-wanted culture of the bureau. The FBI's idea of success still is to catch the criminal after the crime and not before. The agency seems unable to tell the difference between Osama bin Laden and Pretty Boy Floyd.
Dramatic new strategy
That's exactly why the commission named by Congress to recommend steps to prevent 9/11-type attacks from happening again is leaning toward a wholesale, MI5 approach to domestic intelligence gathering.
The new agency concept has received mixed reactions from past directors of central intelligence, two of whom - John Deutch and James Schlesinger - reportedly disagree on the worthiness of the idea. Deutch was for it and Schlesinger against. There also were reports that the commission had run into difficulties getting access to certain information from the Bush administration, but apparently not the White House itself, leaving speculation to center on the FBI or another agency.
The effort to bring some order out of the chaos of American intelligence on both the domestic and foreign fronts is among the more important facets of the war on terrorism. If the FBI can't overcome its own shortcomings, that responsibility should be withdrawn.
