9/11 Commission’s Recommendations for Reforming the Intelligence Community
One recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to reform the Intelligence Community was the separation of its two arms, the Intelligence Committee and CIA Management. This was aimed at reducing conflicts within the Intelligence Community when gathering information. Similarly, the 9/11 commission was to ensure that the president and congress are able to make informed decisions on national security and foreign policies.1
This was to be effected through the Weapons of Mass Destruction and IRTPA recommendations. Another recommendation is that the Director of National Intelligence was to provide more analytical resources to enhance the tactical and strategic intelligence aimed at understanding and countering insurgency in Iraq.
Currently, the Director of National Intelligence is required to engage in the daily activities of the Intelligence Community fully. It is recommended that the Intelligence Community needs to improve the processes of gathering further and analyzing intelligence reports in order to avoid recurrence of major intelligence blunders such as the report that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in its possession.2
Intelligence management provisions entail an examination of the expected intelligence with both high and low effects, and extenuation plans to help in curtailing the harmful impacts of any unpredictable event; like the 9/11 incidence.
Intelligence management plans have to be revised sporadically by the professionals and policymakers to evade having the study become old and not insightful of the real potential hazard and risks from the renowned terrorists. According to 9/11 commission, another critical consideration of intelligence management plans is the inclusion of an intelligence strategy.
Generally, there are four major approaches, with several disparities.
These include; intelligence avoidance which involves strategies to avoid further terrorist activities, intelligence vindication to diminish the likely impact through intermediary steps, intelligence acceptance that consists in taking the chance of the harmful effect, and the transferring of intelligence information, which involves subcontracting the intelligence recommendations to a third entity that can manage the consequences.
For instance, this could be accomplished financially by employing insurance contracts or prevarication dealings or operationally by terrorists. Intelligence management is considered an indefinable term, and it raises contemplations of safety surveys, invasive checkups, subjective regulations, as well as consequences for desecrations.
Even though the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission has been largely embraced by the country; the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 has conventionally assumed a more inconsiderate approach toward this subject.
Major Components of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA)
One component of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) is the procedure of appointing the Director of National Intelligence.3 The IRTPA stipulates the duties of the director of national intelligence and also describe the code of conduct for the director.
For example, it is essential to note that the director is mandated to provide the president, departmental heads, the executive branch, and the superior military commanders and police chiefs with nationwide intelligence.4
The Director of National Intelligence should guarantee that the intelligence sources/methods are hardly known by strangers. IRTPA also provides the composition of the national intelligence director’s office and stipulates the duties of the individuals who work together with the director of national intelligence.
The act provides the composition of the National Intelligence Council and its roles. IRTPA discusses the duties of the Director of Science and Technology, who works within the office of the director of national intelligence. The responsibilities of the Central Intelligence Agency and its composition are also stipulated by the IRTPA. The act also discusses the termination of CIA employees’ employments.
The act also defines national security and elaborates how the department of defense is to coordinate with the Central Intelligence Agency on security issues. In section 1016, the act discusses information sharing and information sharing environment. The office of the program manager and the duties of the office’s holder are provided by the act.
The duties of the Director of National Counterterrorism Agency are also provided by the act. Section 1022 of the act discusses the establishment and responsibilities of the National Counter Proliferation Center. In article 1031, the roles and composition of the Joint Intelligence Community Council are highlighted. In section 1041, enhancement of education within the intelligence community is discussed.
The powers of the Federal Government to conduct war on terrorism and its limits in this pursuit are discussed in section 1061. The act highlights various amendments on various acts in subtitle G.
The modalities of transferring, termination of employment of personnel and transition of the community management staff are highlighted in subtitle H. The act also evaluates the need for improving the intelligence capabilities of the FBI in title II. The act discusses security clearance processes in title III. Security procedures in various modes of transportation such as aviation are discussed in title IV of the act.
In subtitle C, the act discusses air cargo security measures aimed at enhancing aviation security. Maritime security measures are discussed in subtitle D of title IV in action. The act discusses border protection and modalities through which individuals can be allowed to enter the country in title V.
Section 5201 of title V focuses on border surveillance while section 5202 looks into procedures to be used in deporting individuals who have participated in military training in organizations linked with terrorism. In subtitle E of the act, treatment of individuals from foreign nations who have been engaged in terrorist activities is discussed.5
Title VI establishes the protocols desired for reporting by the AG (attorney general) to the Intelligence Committee within the House of Representatives, Senate and Judiciary of the 2 Houses. Amendments of the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Antiterrorism Technical Corrections Act are stated in the act.
The act discusses the importance of preventing terrorists from accessing destructive weapons such as atomic weapons and viruses. The act provides procedures for implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations in title VII. The act also gives measures that can be used in screening potential terrorists at points of entry into the country.
9/11 Commission and the IRTPA Recommendations Comparison
The 9/11 Commission recommendations formed the grounds for introduction of the office of the Director of National Intelligence and also IRTPA (Scanlin, 5). Through the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the IRTPA and the Homeland Security Act were amended in order to enhance the extent of Information Sharing Environment. Division of labor in intelligence is also recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
This is aimed at enhancing the processes of gathering in various agencies.6 The 9/11 Commission also resulted in the formation of the National Counter-Terrorism Center and stipulated its roles in overcoming the tactical gaps in fighting terrorism. The recommendation also gives NCTC responsibility for conducting joint operational planning.
It also recommends that the United States government needs to identify real or potential terrorist havens and target any terrorists in order to scare them. The commission also calls for the need to cooperate with nations that are willing to help the United States in the fight against terrorism.7 The commission recommends total intolerance to governments such as Pakistan which tend to support extremism.
The 9/11 Commission also recommends the consolidation of the gains made in Afghanistan by ensuring that the country continues to remain secure and stable. IRTPA, on the other hand, has resulted in modification of various aspects of intelligence and terrorism prevention agencies.
For instance, it resulted in the reorganization of the Intelligence Community and created the post of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Counterterrorism Center.
The ways through which 9/11 Commission professionals reached their target audience in unconventional ways were vast. They created viable interpersonal relationships and communication provisions amidst the institutions. The aspects of teamwork and individual manipulation also enhanced intelligence ratification and embracement of diverse security recommendations within the US.
Currently, this is a considerable provision in realizing the benefits of IRTPA in the country. Usually, IRTPA is faced with the desire to manage intelligence provisions professionally and efficiently. In comparison, this implies that the 9/11 Commission Recommendations and the IRTP were strategies for the country to control costs, and also enhance security strategies through loyalty, involvement and personal development.
However, since the establishment of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations and the IRTP were both legal intentions, limited contradiction will remain. Again, since effective intelligence institution relies upon proper communication of clear and reliable information, 9/11 Commission Recommendations and the IRTP must embrace proper strategies for greater operational diversities.
The IRTPA Impact on the National Intelligence Community
The IRTPA has had several impacts on the national intelligence community since its inception. One of the impacts of IRTPA is that it has resulted in structural changes within National Intelligence Community.8
For instance, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was formed as a result of IRTPA. One of the roles of NCTCis guiding counterterrorism analysis across the intelligence community (Office of the director of National Intelligence, 2).
Through the IRTPA, members of the intelligence community have been able to coordinate their activities such as collection and analysis of information related to possible terrorist threats. This has been useful in supporting policymaking and military communities.
The act has also made it possible for the supervision of the activities which would ensure that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Intelligence Community are able to discharge their duties effectively.
The act has also enabled the Intelligence Community to adopt scientific and technological advancements aimed at enhancing the speed of acquisition and dissemination of information on possible terrorist threats. This has become possible and the costs of acquiring and responding to terrorist threats have also been reduced through the act.9
In the context of IRTPA, it is crucial to note that a set of policies and procedures should be established and implemented to govern the subject of national security by the United States Government against criminals such as terrorist. Fundamentally, National Intelligence Community is an institutional term referring to the deliberate acts by states.
In this context, most of the American states rely on the National Intelligence information to unveil information and discover individuals who are considered as a potential threat to the security of the state during both times of peace and armed conflicts.10
Basically, National Intelligence Community is an essential provision for any country like the United States of America to employ in alienating terrorist acts. It is vital for the USA to continue exercising the technique considering its efficiency and appropriateness in nurturing and ensuring continuous peace.
It is important to consider the safety of the nationals as well as the protection of the properties owned by the concerned states. This argument relates to the fact that the National Intelligence Community does not predispose the country into a state of war but ensures continuation of public and economic affairs within a highly secured environment.
However, there is great importance to amend the policies governing IRTPA to address the widespread criticisms about morality and efficacy of the security technique, especially when establishing the security challenges. Relevant policies should be enacted to streamline the operations of IRTPA and create a coherent procedure on how operations should be conducted, when, and where.
This is a critical provision as it will help in managing IRTPA and National Intelligence Community hence saving the country from unnecessary expenditures, and enhance the aspects of security.11
It is important to reiterate that it is within the prerogative of IRTPA to ensure that the National Intelligence Community is operational and conforms to the security demands of the nation. IRTPA is accountable to the security of its citizens anywhere across the US. This position relates to the series of terrorist attacks targeted on the USA and friendly countries that have resulted to lose of innocent lives and destruction of properties.
The USA has encountered numerous challenges in its attempts to man security within its borders and across the world, notwithstanding significant financial and personnel lose. It is for the reasons that targeted killing introduces and remains the best technique that USA can rely on to address its security obligations. In advancing the campaigns in favor of security agencies, the USA needs to amend its criteria of identifying the potential threats.
The USA intelligence organs must prove within legal and criminal basis that the target is a threat to the wellbeing of the country. This indicates how the IRTPA has impacted on the national intelligence community.
To execute the targeted intelligence security, it is essential that the USA amend its policies to conform to the international law of war. Since the USA does not target innocent and patriotic citizens, it is not appropriate to kill the later during operation to alienate a threat.
As a way of observing integrity of life, it is important for US intelligence to exercise their expertise as much as possible to capture the targets and prosecute them in legal institutions. However, there are certain targets who have sophisticated security and difficult to capture but at the same time posing a threat to the country. In such instances, it is important and appropriate for US security organs to use drones to track and kill the targets
How Reforms Have Impacted On the Various Agencies
The reforms which have been enacted with the aim of improving national security have had positive impacts on various security agencies. It has been noted that there are too many federal agencies which make sharing information difficult.12 However, the reforms have made it possible for these agencies to coordinate their activities more efficiently.
For instance, reforms brought about by the IRTPA have helped in increasing the capacity of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in collecting intelligence information on national security matters. The reforms have also made the transportation sector more secure than before and border surveillance by security forces has been enhanced.
In the aviation sector, biometric technology has been adopted and this has made the process of identifying individuals faster and more accurate. The reforms have made the process of identifying potential terrorist activities and terrorist faster and this has improved national security.
Reforms also led to the introduction of the Patriot Act, which has empowered intelligence and law enforcement agencies in collecting and disseminating terrorist information.
Reforms also led to the formation of the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act which resulted in creation of the office of the National Counterintelligence Executive who was to be in charge of counterintelligence and security in the United States. Basically, intelligence is an essential aspect of a country’s security.
Countries that lack the competency to manage terrorism acts might face severe consequences in the context of socio-economic provisions. This indicates how the reforms have impacted on the various agencies in a diverse manner. Ideally, many factors within the national intelligence require different considerations.
In some agencies, including a workplace environment with considerable ambiance for all employees is critical for the performance of the organization. Poor morale, low worker turnover and harassment are some of the negative elements. Other negative factors may include employee discrimination and absenteeism. These factors lead to great losses in productivity.13 Organizations distinguish the need to engage in the development of diversity. In attaining this, there are several initiatives involved. For four decades, most organizations continue to spend numerous resources in diversity reforms and how to avert the acts of terrorism.
The basic aim is to enhance their level of performance. These reforms also increase the level of employee welfare and elevate the organization‘s efficiency.14 This equally indicates how the reforms have impacted on the various agencies in vast contexts.
Conclusion
IRTPA has had positive impacts on the national intelligence community by enhancing the gathering and dissemination of terrorism-related information in different security agencies. The act aims at avoiding any future failure to detect terrorist threats and misinformation among security agencies. It has also enhanced intelligence support to policymakers.
However, there remains the need to further enhance the national intelligence community by adopting more intelligence reforms. With the increase in accessibility to technological advancements, terrorists continue to devise ways of evading intelligence agencies.
This means that there is still need to evaluate such plans and enact reforms that will give the security agencies more authority to deal with them. It is important to note that the 9/11 Commission recommendations formed the grounds for introduction of the office of the Director of National Intelligence and also IRTPA.
Through the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the IRTPA and the Homeland Security Act were amended in order to enhance the extent of the Information Sharing Environment, as mentioned before. Division of labor in intelligence is also recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Basically, the IRTPA has had several impacts on the national intelligence community since its inception.
The IRTPA stipulates the duties of the director of national intelligence and also describe the code of conduct for the director. The director is required to ensure that the president, heads of various departments in the executive branch, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior military commanders, among others, are provided with national intelligence.
Concurrently, IRTPA has resulted in structural changes within the National Intelligence Community. For instance, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was formed as a result of IRTPA.
Bibliography
Bazan, Elizabeth B. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Overview and Modifications. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008.
Bolton, M. Kent. U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11: Present at the Re-Creation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
Cummins, Sally J. Digest of United States Practice in International Law Cumulative Index. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007.
Fingar, Thomas. Reducing Uncertainty Intelligence Analysis and National Security. Stanford, CA: Stanford Security Studies, 2011.
Iseby, John. 9/11 Commission Recommendations. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008.
Posner, Richard A. Preventing Surprise Attacks: Intelligence Reform in the Wake of 9/11. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford Univ, 2005.
Footnotes
1 Richard Posner, Preventing Surprise Attacks: Intelligence Reform in the Wake of 9/11 (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford Univ, 2005), 62.
2 JohnIseby. 9/11 Commission Recommendations (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008), 34.
3 Richard Posner, Preventing Surprise Attacks: Intelligence Reform in the Wake of 9/11 (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford Univ, 2005), 45.
4Thomas Fingar, Reducing Uncertainty Intelligence Analysis and National Security (Stanford: Stanford Security Studies, 2011), 34.
5 Sally Cummins, Digest of United States Practice in International Law Cumulative Index (Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr, 2007), 67.
6 Kent Bolton, U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11: Present at the Re-Creation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), 11.
7 Elizabeth Bazan, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Overview and Modifications (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008), 12.
8 Elizabeth Bazan, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Overview and Modifications ( New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008), 2.
9 Kent Bolton, U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11: Present at the Re-Creation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), 131
10 Thomas Finga, Reducing Uncertainty Intelligence Analysis and National Security (Stanford: Stanford Security Studies, 2011), 134.
11Sally Cummins, Digest of United States Practice in International Law Cumulative Index (Oxford: Oxford Univ Pr, 2007), 167.
12 Elizabeth Bazan. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Overview and Modifications (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2008), 22.
13Kent Bolton, U.S. National Security and Foreign Policymaking After 9/11: Present at the Re-Creation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008), 11.
14 Thomas Fingar, Reducing Uncertainty Intelligence Analysis and National Security (Stanford: Stanford Security Studies, 2011), 76.