Skip to main content

Background and Analysis in Intelligence Issues

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, dramatically
demonstrated the intelligence threats facing the United States in the new century. In response,
Congress approved significantly larger intelligence budgets and, in December 2004, passed the
most extensive reorganization of the Intelligence Community since the National Security Act of
1947. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (hereafter: the “Intelligence
Reform Act”) (P.L. 108-458) created a Director of National Intelligence (separate from the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency) who heads the Intelligence Community, serves as the
principal intelligence adviser to the President, and oversees and directs the acquisition of major
collections systems. As long urged by some outside observers, one individual is now able to
concentrate on the Intelligence Community as a whole and possesses statutory authorities for
establishing priorities for budgets, for directing collection by the whole range of technical
systems and human agents, and for the preparation of community-wide analytical products.

P.L. 108-458 was designed to address the findings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
Upon the United States, known as the 9/11 Commission, that there has been inadequate coordination
of the national intelligence effort and that the Intelligence Community, as then-organized, could not
serve as an agile information gathering network in the struggle against international terrorists. The
Commission released its report in late July 2004 and Congress debated its recommendations through
the following months. A key issue was the extent of the authorities of the DNI, especially with regard
to budgeting for technical collection systems managed by Defense Department agencies. In the end,
many of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission regarding intelligence organization were
adopted after a compromise provision was included that called for implementing the act “in a manner
that respects and does not abrogate” the statutory authorities of department heads.

On April 21, 2005, the Senate confirmed the nominations of John D. Negroponte, who had served
as Ambassador to Iraq, as DNI and Lt. General Michael V. Hayden, then Director of the National
Security Agency, as Deputy DNI. (In May 2006 Hayden became Director of the CIA.) On
February 7, 2007, retired Navy Vice Admiral J. Michael McConnell was confirmed by the Senate
as Negroponte’s successor as DNI. Retired Admiral Dennis C. Blair was confirmed as the third
DNI on January 28; Leon C. Panetta, former House Member and Director of the Office of
Management and Budget under President Clinton, was confirmed as CIA Director on February
12.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Project TWO-FOLD

25 MAY 1973 MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Secretary, CIA Management Committee 1. This memorandum sets forth a recommendation for your approval in paragraph 5. 2. For the past several years, this office has been supporting the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) by spotting, assessing, and recruiting personnel to form an internal security unit whose primary mission is the detection of corruption within the BNDD. Subsequent to the recruitment and training stage, the individuals selected are turned over to the Chief Inspector of BNDD for operational guidance and handling in their various domestic assignments. 3. Recently, this Agency has extended this activity by supporting BNDD in the covert acquisition of individuals who are hired as Staff Agents utilized under nonofficial cover and directed against the principal international drug traffickers. These individuals are true employees of the BNDD and, although all administrative details relative to their employment are handled within...

Victory Through Auto Registration

Joel Ross Anti-imperialism in Panama "The Panamanian people, with their patriotic government as the vanguard, have been valiantly struggling against US imperialist economic and political aggression and hegemony." This statement typifies the rancid rhetoric that Panamanians hear from the men who wield or symbolize the power in their country, primarily General Manuel Noriega, chief of the Panama Defense Forces (PDF), and Manuel Solis Palma, the head of government. I say "head of government," because, while the Panamanian Government refers to "President" Solis Palma, the US Government recognizes him as "Minister in Charge of the Presidency." A Devious Plan The Panamanian Government has stressed the importance of defeating "US imperialism" and its Panamanian "agents." It says these "bad Panamanians" are from the upper class and have "Caucasian tendencies." That is the government's way of implying to the maj...

The Darker Bioweapons Future

3 November 2003 A panel of life science experts convened for the Strategic Assessments Group by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that advances in biotechnology, coupled with the difficulty in detecting nefarious biological activity, have the potential to create a much more dangerous biological warfare (BW) threat. The panel noted: The effects of some of these engineered biological agents could be worse than any disease known to man. The genomic revolution is pushing biotechnology into an explosive growth phase. Panelists asserted that the resulting wave front of knowledge will evolve rapidly and be so broad, complex, and widely available to the public that traditional intelligence means for monitoring WMD development could prove inadequate to deal with the treat from these advanced biological weapons. Detection of related activities, particularly the development of novel bioengineered pathogens, will depend increasingly on more specific human intelligence and, argued panelist...