Centrehalf,
et al,
Many articles are written using lay interpretations of technical terms. Relative to this discussion, we could write a whole book on how fouled-up the Intelligence Community (IC) is, and the differences between law enforcement organizations, intelligence programs, counterintelligence activities, and security services. They are all similar in the features, but they are all different in purpose and mission.
The can be said for the differences between an
(Agency or General Service) Operations Center, an Intelligence & Counterintelligence Center, and a Fusion Center. They too have similarities, but also differ in the role and mission. For the purpose of this discussion, I will not go into too much detail, except as to clarify some points relative to DHS:
- State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion centers) serve as focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information between the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT) and private sector partners.
- By building trusted relationships and collaborating with SLTT and private sector partners, fusion centers can gather and share the information necessary to pursue and disrupt activities that may be indicators of, or potential precursors to, terrorist activity. With timely, accurate information on potential terrorist threats, fusion centers can directly contribute to and inform investigations initiated and conducted by federal entities, such as the Joint Terrorism Task Forces led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Additionally, I would like to clarify the distinction between "Intelligence" - which is an inclusive term --- and "Foreign Intelligence" and "Counterintelligence"
(functional areas):"
50 USC § 401a
(1) The term “intelligence” includes foreign intelligence and counterintelligence.
(2) The term “foreign intelligence” means information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.
(3) The term “counterintelligence” means information gathered, and activities conducted, to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.
POINT: So when you are talking about a
DHS Fusion Center, you are focusing on
domestic information sharing (refined intelligence products and unrefined information reports), in support of two principal areas:
(Note: Not the direction or coordination of individual operational activities.)
- Law Enforcement Activities countering criminal activity.
- Counterintelligence Activities countering espionage, sabotage, subversion, treason, sedition, and terrorism.
I don't think the DHS is just another layer of bureaucracy. In less than 10 years it grew to just shy of 250,000 employees, and that's just DHS not including organizations under it. There are over 180 organizations and agencies operating under the umbrella of DHS, including two military organizations: the Coast Guard and the Army/Air National Guard.
(COMMENT)
References:
The DHS is a big activity. Reference "b"
(supra) is the Organizational Chart. It is really only a consolidation of some of the smaller agencies
(about 8 departments of agencies/services) into one huge (underfunded), Cabinet Level Department. And while DHS is a member of the Intelligence Community (IC), much like the Department of State (DOS), only certain entities within are actually true members. (See Reference "a") The Coast Guard is a DHS activity, but also a stand-alone IC Member. The Office of Intelligence and Research (INR) is a subordinate element of DOS, but the only activity of DOS which is a member of the Intelligence Community. The Office of Diplomatic Security (DS) is a security service and not an intelligence service. Most of DHS is in the realm of a "security service" and not an Intelligence or Counterintelligence service.
In my opinion a lot of what DHS now controls are things which used to be handled by several different departments, and that shifting and consolidating of the power within the federal government makes DHS incredibly dangerous.
(COMMENT)
Yes, I agree, DHS is a growing danger; but we might argue what (within DHS growth and development) constitutes those dangers. But I also see it as the only Domestic Agency that can now challenge the authority of the FBI.
Before 911, and before the creation of DHS, it was discussed at length in a government discussion group (
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nssg/) the Hart-Rudman Commission, AKA: the US Commission on National Security. I was a participant in the discussions. The original concept behind the promotion of DHS was not to "prevent" a major attack, but to "respond." The Commission had already decided that further investment in a offensive countermeasures (seek-out and detect - exploit - neutralize) against hostile threats was futile and that an attack was eminent - it would happen no matter how much we invested in active, offensive countermeasures.
It is my opinion that the actual seed that spawned DHS was tempered and forged by a defeatist attitude.
I am by no means an expert on how DHS operates their Fusion Centers but from what I've read over the last few years I wouldn't call them the same old pig.
I am by no means an expert on how DHS operates their Fusion Centers but from what I've read over the last few years I wouldn't call them the same old pig.
//... jump ...//
It is new for a federal agency to cast this net so openly at the American people on this scale which is why I just can't call this the same old pig.
(COMMENT)
Oh, I think many have missed just how old and ugly a Pig this "Fusion Center" concept really is. And the need for the "Fusion Center" was amplified by grave security concerns, a lack of intra-agency cooperation, mistrust between agencies, and a tendency by agencies to over classify information. But the Pig is really what we call, in the Intelligence Cycle --- Analysis, Dissemination, and Integration.
It has been around for as nearly as long as prostitution. The overall Intelligence Cycle is much larger than just the Analysis, Production, Dissemination, and Integration piece. But that is the piece that the "Fusion Centers" handle on the domestic lanscape. Only the term is new. The need to properly Analysis, Production, Dissemination, and Integrate has been long established. It is word-smithing and political flim-flam artistry that makes people think that "fusing the intelligence into the planning process in the operation is something new and exotic. It is nothing of the sort.
As far as the technology you see in the Fusion Centers, everyone like the blinking lights, and satellite imagery. The love the huge flatscreen monitors. The more space-age it looks, the more impressed the visitors become. But don't be fooled by the technology.
My assertion is that they are functioning exactly as intended, they're an end-around, a way for the federal government to bypass the additional rules and directives which specifically govern the way an intelligence operative does his/her job. It's not new for someone who wants information to cast a very large net and then build a picture based upon many little bits of information which by themselves seem meaningless.
(COMMENT)
Whether the fusion centers are dealing in producing tactical (real-time//near-real-time) intelligence, actionable or strategic, domestic or international intelligence, they only deal in the Analysis, Production, Dissemination, and Integration piece of the process. They are not in control of resources and assets that they can direct to plan and initiate operations against hostile domestic targets. Most of them belong to the other 15 members of the IC.
Most Respectfully,
R
