Clandestine service created to handle U.S. spies overseas
By Stephen J. Hedges Washington Bureau Fri Oct 14, 9:40 AM ET
National intelligence director John Negroponte on Thursday created the National Clandestine Service within the CIA to coordinate U.S. spying efforts overseas.
The change, one of the most significant restructurings of American spying since Congress created Negroponte's office last year, is intended to improve cooperation among the 15 U.S. spy agencies and streamline the flow of information to elected officials.
Under the plan, CIA Director Porter Goss also will become national human intelligence manager while the day-to-day operations of the clandestine service will be handled by an undercover officer. That officer publicly is referred to simply as "Jose."
The creation of the spy coordination unit and Goss' role in heading it are certain to boost morale at the CIA, which came in for heavy criticism following intelligence failures prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the
Iraq war. The CIA has lost a number of senior personnel since the arrival of Goss, a former Florida congressman and one-time CIA officer, who took over in September 2004.
***
This is my thought, I believe that it was a grand failure by the CIA and FBI and even the administration that caused 9/11. Now do we need another intelligence agency? I don't know, but my gut tells me no.
KROC From United States of America, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 76 Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 764 times:
The fact that the U.S. stopped relying on the use of spys and such is what helped allow 9/11 to happen. Perhaps an agency with the sole purpose of handling spys and such would be a beneficial thing.
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
HAJFlyer From Switzerland, joined Sep 2005, 1466 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 764 times:
" Intelligence officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the change would primarily affect the CIA, FBI and Defense Department intelligence units' efforts to recruit and run spies. The question was never whether the CIA would direct human intelligence-gathering operations, they said, but how best to reorganize the efforts of the other agencies to make them compatible with what the CIA was already doing."
Considering the fact that the Department of Homeland Security seems to be having a pretty hard time to get all the agencies under its roof to cooperate closely and share information extensively, I find it rather hard to believe that the FBI and the various intelligence services within the DoD would suddenly forget about the inter-agency rivalries and submit to an effective CIA-led coordination of their foreign activities.
Our three intelligence services here in Switzerland are significantly smaller than their US counterparts, but even getting these few guys to work together has been pretty hard. It seems to me that spooks tend to be pretty independent-minded and don't like to be lead by some bureaucrat who is a political appointee and doesn't really understand their business.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 28 Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 759 times:
Quoting KROC (Reply 1): The fact that the U.S. stopped relying on the use of spys and such is what helped allow 9/11 to happen. Perhaps an agency with the sole purpose of handling spys and such would be a beneficial thing.
That's an interesting point. However, I question your point of the U.S. not relying on spies. Where did you hear that one?
KROC From United States of America, joined May 2000, 19737 posts, RR: 76 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 753 times:
It was in the news and has been since 9/11. They were always bringing up the U.S.' reliance on satellites for intel instead of spys and operatives in other countries.
"Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again"
HAJFlyer From Switzerland, joined Sep 2005, 1466 posts, RR: 10 Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 750 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3): your point of the U.S. not relying on spies
Prior to 9/11 the main trend in the intel-gathering business was to focus less on HUMINT (intelligence gathers by humans) and more on SIGINT, ELINT and IMINT (signals-,electronic-, and image intelligence). The reason for this is that the latter methods were perceived to be more reliable than HUMIT.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19695 posts, RR: 56 Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 739 times:
Quoting KROC (Reply 1): The fact that the U.S. stopped relying on the use of spys and such is what helped allow 9/11 to happen. Perhaps an agency with the sole purpose of handling spys and such would be a beneficial thing.
I agree with the first part of your post - that's been proven. But I don't see why we need another agency for the purpose of managing HUMINT. I would think that the CIA should be capable of handling that (and if it isn't, then change things so that it is). I worry that this is more of a PR "we're doing something" that an actual constructive change, and may actually PREVENT the sharing of data between all the various spy organizations - I don't even know how many we have.
Quoting HAJFlyer (Reply 5): The reason for this is that the latter methods were perceived to be more reliable than HUMIT.
This was correct in terms of dealing with foreign powers - one can tell where troops are, what communications are being sent, etc. without having to endanger the lives of operatives. But it's well nigh useless against terrorism, which is very much a guerilla warfare - no big armies to spy on with satellites, and no fancy encryptions. There need to be inside agents if anti-terrorist intelligence is going to be useful.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
CaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 723 times:
We do need more information gathered from actual people instead of shit we just pull out of the air.
However, I think setting up a new agency is a mistake. Government is big enough and agencies cost money, especially when there is already an agency in place who can handle this (CIA). Too many chiefs, not enough indians.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18831 posts, RR: 64 Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 710 times:
Quoting B744F (Reply 7): Now lets all have another agency run free without any oversight to squash dissent!
Maybe you could point out the paragraph in the linked article where it said there wouldn't be any oversight.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 688 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3): That's an interesting point. However, I question your point of the U.S. not relying on spies. Where did you hear that one?
Pretty well known TBar that the US Gov't quit relying on HumInt quite a while ago . . . attempted to rely on satellites and other intel of obvious dubious quality . . . nothing beats HumInt . . .
Usnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 674 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): I believe that it was a grand failure by the CIA and FBI and even the administration that caused 9/11. Now do we need another intelligence agency?
Let's clear this up real quick.....they aren't making another separate agency, but creating another directorate within the CIA. This looks like another director wanting to put his name on something during his tenure, so he's creating this. I always thought the DO was good enough to handle everything and I'm sure this move is going to piss some people off.
I wouldn't read too much into this. Stuff like this happens all the time. Another director pops up, wants to coin something 'new' during his term, works for a couple of years, then a new director comes in and changes it again. This is pretty much the history of the CIA. Has nothing to do with creating a new intelligence service or government entity.
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 28 Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 667 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10): Pretty well known TBar that the US Gov't quit relying on HumInt quite a while ago . . . attempted to rely on satellites and other intel of obvious dubious quality . . . nothing beats HumInt . . .
Yea, I wasn't aware of this. The ultimate irony I find in this is that we obviously had some pretty bad Intel leading into the war in Iraq. Now either it was bad or it was deliberately false. We'll see the truth once the whole affair with Valerie Plame gets unfolded. Whatever happens, I find it all pretty ridiculous.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 71 Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 665 times:
Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): Now do we need another intelligence agency? I don't know, but my gut tells me no.
The "concept" behind this, and behind the creation of DHS was unification at the top. Good idea but there is only one way it can possibly work.
The people running it can not be:
1. Career civil servants.
2. Political apointees.
Now what does that leave?
Any new agency we create will clone itself into the government mold. It will become a bureaucracy and eventually its internal rules will prevail over the needs of reality. That is what has happened to every government agency from NASA all the way across the aphabet.
I'd like to think it is a good idea. I remain skeptical.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 648 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Tbar220 (Thread starter): is intended to improve cooperation among the 15 U.S. spy agencies
15...wow. Can anyone list them all? I've only ever heard of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and, I suppose, the DHS.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Sep 2005, 1466 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
