Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. You may challenge, support or supplement another student’s answer using the terms, concepts and theories from the required readings. Also, do not be afraid to respectfully disagree where you feel appropriate; as this should be part of your analysis process at this academic level.

Forum posts are graded on timeliness, relevance, knowledge of the weekly readings, and the quality of original ideas. Sources utilized to support answers are to be cited in accordance with the APA writing style by providing a general parenthetical citation (reference the author, year and page number) within your post, as well as an adjoining reference list. Refer to grading rubric for additional details concerning grading criteria.

Respond to Michael:

Current relationships

The intelligence enterprise has grown significantly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I think the evolution of the relationship has somewhat been enhanced from the current approach to counterterrorism being mainly at the federal and national level to the local level. Nearly all terrorism that I have witnessed has been handled by the local responding jurisdiction. This is where the intelligence disconnect may be.

Gaps

Following 9/11, the U.S. implemented significant changes and reform – partially due to the vividness factor – in how it looked at national security (Bartholomew, 2004). Not only did stopping terrorist attacks become a top priority issue but policymakers fundamentally altered U.S. national security infrastructure to address violent, asymmetric, non-state threats. The permanence (e.g. the creation of an entirely new department) of these alterations means that even as threats have evolved, the U.S. is reliant on institutions anchored to a specific moment in time. The White House then, almost immediately, deprived DHS of one of its primary, intended functions – strategic CT analysis – with the creation of the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which, by way of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), became the National Counterterrorism Center. Creation of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), also via the IRTPA, capped this harried, CT-oriented restructuring.

Reformation

As part of a bipartisan group of 27 organizations, the Brennan Center endorsed a series of recommendations for ways to strengthen House oversight of the Intelligence Community in the new Congress. The FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017, it does involve “some significant changes to 702.” What follows is a section-by-section summary of its provisions. For further background on the reauthorization debate, see resource page for the source cited and a review of last year’s coverage will provide more insight, (United States: Statement by the Press Secretary, 2017).

Under Section 101, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence (DNI) are required to adopt procedures “consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment” for querying information collected pursuant to Section 702 authority. According to Rogers, D. (2018), these procedures, which will govern searches designed to retrieve communications of or concerning U.S. persons, are subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Though the specifics are for the most part left to be determined, the adopted procedures must include a record keeping of each “United States person query term” used. The biggest gaps of interoperability I can find is in the past five years, the IC has been using technology to break down barriers between agencies and to make intelligence data a community asset, the platform for data sharing and agencies also need to improve how they deliver data to the public by deploying more application program interfaces (APIs) that allow apps and websites to grab information from government databases and be distributed amongst each other. Data sharing between disparate agencies, especially when one department’s mission complements another’s, can further the government’s effectiveness.

Reference:

Bartholomew, D. J. (2004). Measuring Intelligence: Facts and Fallacies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.barry.edu/log…

Rogers, D. (2018). Intelligence and Security Act 2017: A Preliminary Critique. New Zealand Law Review, (Issue 4), 657. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.barry.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.newzlndlr2018.35&site=eds-live

United States: Statement by the Press Secretary on the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act of 2017. (2018). Mena Report. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.barry.edu/log…