Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards backers: Tell us about the Homeland Intelligence Agency.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 02:46 PM
Original message
Edwards backers: Tell us about the Homeland Intelligence Agency.
Edwards has introduced a bill to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency, a new consolidated domestic law enforcement and intel agency.

Apparently it's going to combine CIA and FBI into a single entity?!

What is that all about? Care to justify it?

Is the text available on the Web?

Any statements by JE on this?

Any news stories generated by it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DaisyUCSB Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, you're off about that, but it is an important issue
He's not combining the CIA or FBI with anything. But he is stripping the FBI of it's spying powers, and transferring, not creating new, those powers to a new agency under the DHS. This new agency and those spying powers not only has/have ALOT more congressional oversight than the FBI currently does, but he would also create an office of civil liberties and civil rights simultaneously that would be a watchdog within government to permanantly protect liberty against any Ashcrofts in the future

Look at his issues page on his website. It's in a few different categories
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. The Clinton Wars and Age of Sacred Terror paint a picture of the FBI's
activities since '92 which make it sound like they wanted 9/11 to happen so that Bush could have something to run on.

Clinton allocated something like 100 mil to the FBI to investigate domestic terrorism. The FBI told him they spent the money properly. Years later the FBI admitted they spent the money on investigating internet fraud rather than domestic terrorism.

Look at Wen Ho Lee too. That entire thing was designed to give the Republicans something to run on.

Edwards wants to take the responsibilities the FBI has shirked (probably intentionally) thanks to being populated by a lot of people more loyal to the Bush family than to America. He wants to put those responsibilities into the hands of a new orgainization which will be loyal to the principles according to which it is formed. Whomever forms this organization will deterimine it's principles for a generation.

We NEED an organization like this because the Republicans win by creating fear (look at the color codes, and anthrax, and all the bullshit that's happened). We need a competetent organization that is NOT motivated by Republcian desires to promote fear.

The HIA proves to me that Edwards knows EXACTLY how the world works, and knows exactly what's needed to create a world in which Democrats and progressives, and people patriotic to America's ideals can get elected and guide America towards a better tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgpenn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. a question if you don't mind answering
I am curious why you still sport Clark's avatar but have a passion for Edwards. I mean no offense i'm curious is all.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Maybe he's not a 'take no prisoners' poster.
Maybe he can be objective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaisyUCSB Donating Member (455 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thats about it,
it's she by the way.

I try to always be fair, and now that it's a 2 man race, I think Edwards is better than Kerry.

Although unlike alot of Kerry supporters and some Edwards-supporters I see today I'm not going to be vicious or hypocritical or both in my attacks, in fact I'm not going to attack at all, in fact, I'm going to continue to defend Kerry where I see falsehoods about him being spread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Sorry, ma'am!
No offense meant. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Padraig18 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. Say, why don't YOU tell US about it, instead.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. You would consider what I had to say an attack.
And I'm lazy about the research.

I mean, given what a hothead I am, I doubt I'll do anything but criticize anyone who is not for the ABOLITION of the FBI and CIA and the throwing open of all of their files to the scrutiny of historians and prosectuors.

So you want Edwards supporters - even ones who just turned into ones yesterday, such as yourself - to first explain and defend the damn thing.

Do you have more of a clue than I do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edwards4President Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Edwards' proposed Domestic Intelligence Agency
will not combine the CIA and FBI. It would be a new agency that focuses on intelligence gathering, rather than law enforcement, and have a specific mission to protect civil liberties with new judicial review requirements, new public reporting requirements, and a new office of individual liberties.

Senate Floor Speech: Foreign Intelligence Collection Improvement Act of 2003
Senator John Edwards
February 13, 2003


Today I want to talk about homeland security. First, I will talk about the serious shortcomings in the administration's response. Then I will talk about the six bills I've introduced in this Congress to improve our homeland security, including a bill today to overhaul the way we do intelligence work here at home.

The first responsibility of any government is to protect the security of its people. Yet we live in a time when Americans feel extraordinary insecurity. We're at an elevated level of threat warning. The CIA Director says al Qaeda is "resuming the offensive." The FBI director says there are "al Qaeda cells in the United States that we have not yet been able to identify." In other words, al Qaeda cells are operating here, but we don't know who they are, where they are, or what they're doing . . .

Finally, there is the bill I've introduced today, and that I want to talk about in some detail. This bill will make fundamental changes in the way we protect Americans against international terrorists operating within our borders. This bill takes away from the FBI the responsibility to collect intelligence on foreign terrorists groups within the United States. And this bill gives that responsibility to a new Homeland Intelligence Agency. I believe this agency will do a better job protecting our safety and our basic freedoms. Let me briefly explain why.

There is no question that the FBI is full of dedicated professionals who are patriots, who serve their country with courage and conviction, who do all of us proud.

But there is also no question that the FBI made many serious mistakes before September 11. There was the Phoenix Memorandum, a memorandum about suspicious behavior at flight schools that the FBI did not follow up on. There was the Moussaoui case, where the FBI had in its possession a computer full of critical information, yet did not access the information there. There were even two hijackers who the FBI knew were threats but did not track and stop.

It's true all this was before September 11. The other day, Director Mueller told me that my criticisms understated the extent of the FBI's reforms. Well, I respect Director Mueller, and I look forward to continuing to talk with him about FBI reform. I have only the best wishes for his reform efforts.

At the same time, it would be hard to understate the seriousness of the problems we have seen.

This is not just my view; it is the view of every objective panel to look at this issue. These panels have raised serious questions about the FBI's response to terrorism, and in some instances, about the FBI's capacity to respond to terrorism:

The Markle Task Force commented: "...there is a resistance ingrained in the FBI ranks to sharing counter-terrorism information...the FBI has not prioritized intelligence analysis in the areas of counter-terrorism."

The Joint Congressional Inquiry noted: The FBI has a "history of repeated shortcomings within its current responsibility for domestic intelligence..."

The Brookings Institution went further, stating that "there are strong reasons to question whether the FBI is the right agency to conduct domestic intelligence collection and analysis."

Finally, the Gilmore Commission recently said: "the Bureau's long standing tradition and organizational culture persuade us that, even with the best of intentions, the FBI cannot soon be made over into an organization dedicated to detecting and preventing attacks rather than one dedicated to punishing them."

I believe the Gilmore Commission reached the right conclusion.

Part of the problem is bureaucratic resistance at the FBI. The FBI is full of superb public servants, but the reality is that the FBI is also a bureaucracy, and it is the nature of a bureaucracy to resist change. That's just the reality. It was only in November that the New York Times reported the FBI's number 2 official was "amazed and astounded" by the FBI's sluggish response to the terrorist threat.

Beyond the problem of bureaucratic resistance, there is a more fundamental problem with the FBI. That problem is the conflict at the base of the FBI's mission, which is a conflict between law enforcement and intelligence. These are fundamentally different functions.

Law enforcement is about building criminal cases and putting people in jail. Intelligence isn't about building a case; it's about gathering information and putting it together into a bigger picture.

The FBI has never been built for intelligence. It has always been an agency that hires people who want to be law enforcement officers, trains them to be law enforcement officers, and promotes them for succeeding as law enforcement officers. Cases have been run by field offices with little of the central coordination that is essential to combat national networks of terrorists. The FBI has regularly kept intelligence within the agency's walls rather than sharing it with other key players.

Now, the FBI says all this is changing. But with all due respect, the FBI's reforms are too little and too late. They are not enough, and because of the nature of the FBI, they cannot ever be enough.

That is why I propose today to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency, one that would be responsible for collecting foreign intelligence inside the United States, analyzing that intelligence, and getting it to the policymakers or first responders who need it. This entity isn't in the new Department of Homeland Security. It isn't in the newly announced "Terrorist Threat Integration Center." That's just about analysis. This is about collection.

I believe this agency will do a better job fighting terrorism because its sole focus will be intelligence gathering. The inherent conflict between law enforcement and intelligence will not get in the way of its work.

I also believe it will do a better job protecting our civil liberties. While we will not give the new agency any new authorities, we will place new checks on its ability to collect information about innocent people. Time and again, we have seen this administration overreach when it comes to civil liberties. That should stop, and this proposal will help stop it. We will require judicial approval before the most secretive and invasive investigations of religious and political groups. We will require greater public reporting and more internal auditing. We will establish a new and independent office of civil liberties within the new agency that is dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of innocent Americans. So at the end of the day, we will help to fulfill America's promise --- that we are safe and free.

I think this bill is an important step to making America safer, and I look forward to working on it with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
4. Is this what he's talking about
when he refers to the need to better infiltrate domestic organizations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. How can I be wrong?
When all I did was ask what it was?

Are you indicative of Edwards supporters?

Why, what will happen when random people walk in here and read that?

Isn't it incumbent on you to show a dignity that honors your man?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 08th 2024, 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC