U.S. policymakers mull creation of domestic intelligence agency

U.S. policymakers mull creation of domestic intelligence agency

www.cnn.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Kingdom has MI-5, which roots out spies and terrorists in the British Isles. Canada has CSIS -- the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Now Congress is asking: Should the U.S. have its own domestic intelligence agency?

(visit the link for the full news article)

What would it be called?

i vote for: NIA (National Intelligence Agency), or S-11 (b/c it sounds cool).

What do you think?

note-i have spent sooo long on the front, am sooo battle-hardened and shell shocked that the fact that the NWO is really happening doesn't phase me. it's here just as i've always known it would be. but....i've also always known that it will only last a short time, like Hitlers 1,000 year Reich lasted 12. yet, a lot of damage can and will be done in that short time, altering human history for millenniums.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

If the Federal government needs a new agency to investigate these things, I suggest they give it a simple name:

Federal (as in, non-international) Bureau (sort of like an agency) of Investigation (sounds much better than 'spying').

Sort of a domestic counterpart to the CIA, working hand-in-hand with the Justice Department and state law enforcement. It could work, but I'd be wary of the possibility of abuse by the Executive Branch.

reply to post by Ian McLean


I couldn't agree more. The FBI is a domestic intelligence agency, and already a member of the United States Intelligence Community (IC). I really don't see the need for another domestic intelligence agency when there's already one in place.

reply to post by Z.S.P.V.G.


Id say considering how much genius we have already seen from the Central Intelligence Agency since its creation between smuggling drugs into the U.S., training various radical groups around the world, and letting Bin Laden go wherever he wants without reprise, it would be a bit strange to create a whole other group to screw things up here at the homefront. Does anyone else think its strange that the CIA supposedly doesn't already handle intelligence in the states according to the government?

Besides, we already have the CIA, DHS, DOD, FBI, NSA, and a few others I am sure I forgot. Do we really need another fake letter agency that money can be embezzled through?

reply to post by Ian McLean


You know what? That is so crazy, it just might work! A star for you.

With all of the domestic surveillance that is going on right now it is pretty scary to think that they are "mulling over" creating a new agency for it. That would probably mean even more surveillance.

Ian, I think what the real goal for yet another alphabet agency is to think of a way to justify growing the government to even bigger heights, costing more to keep it working & to drain more taxes out of the People...Personally, I think the government's already gone far too far in that direction already.

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


Yes, I'd imaging that's part of the picture. As mentioned, the FBI already has these responsibilities and capabilities, but they also have a history of using them, er shall we say 'flexibly'. And the reform efforts that followed out of investigations such as the Church Committee still influence the structure and oversight of the FBI today.

So, by furthering a 'Balkanization' of the intelligence community, action is separated further from oversight, and ramification. Separate agencies need not know what the other is doing, and each can have different definitions of what 'illegal' is, for them. Oversight and review can be similarly diluted.

So, it's not just about creating a huge expensive bureaucracy -- it's about creating a huge expensive unaccountable bureaucracy.

Like I said, I think the government has already gone far too far in that direction...Witness how the Senate illegally voted for the "bailout package" before the Rep House did (even after they shot it down once) & how the second vote in the House went against about 90% of the public dissenting over it. That's merely one recent example of how unaccountability works.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

The FBI is too full in ranks of honest, loyal men and women with intact moral values.

The only reason to create another intelligence agency would be to staff it with cretians and fanatics, hand picked to do their directors bidding.

Kind of a mercenary intelligence agency.

And who would be the first director, Karl Rove?

Sounds like just another brick in the wall of the national security state, another big boys' toy/slush fund/Big Brother's manacle.

Thanks but no thanks, we've got enough alphabet agencies peeking through the draperies already.

[edit on 21-10-2008 by gottago]

Mabe they are looking to name those secret big business look outs they hired on back in 2002 or 2003 cant remember right now. Would be a hoot get a job at a fourtune 500 company then get drafted into the big biz spy core

FBI and CIA don't share intelligence with each other. So its a waste of time here. The bureaucracy of the "WALL" in the intelligence community.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
The FBI is too full in ranks of honest, loyal men and women with intact moral values.

ROFLMAO

MI5 is, in theory, a secret police not a domestic intelligence agency. Also, MI5 and MI6 do not co-operate well (high profile incidents of smears and spying on each other.)

A former agent confessed that MI5 has a habit of investigating anyone in the United Kingdom - especially due to political affiliations. Policing and security is under the jurisdiction of MI5 in Northern Ireland.

So, America, do you really want something like that?

[edit on 21-10-2008 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite


Yes infinite, we want all things British. George Washington wanted to act like an aristocratic Brit before he decided to turn traitor against the Crown. He loves all things Brit.

reply to post by deltaboy


Erm, No.

Washington served in the British army during the Indian Wars and his ambition was to be a commander in His Majesty Army. After feeling it was unachievable, George entered domestic politics and was asked - by the Continental Congress - to be the Commander of the Revolutionary army during the War of Independence (which he reluctantly agreed.)

The rest is history, as we say.

You do know your own history, right?

[edit on 21-10-2008 by infinite]

reply to post by infinite


I'm more referring to his social life acting like a British citizen before the American Revolutionary war.

reply to post by deltaboy


Ermmm, you are wrong again.
Him and Jefferson opposed the aristocratic ways of Europe, so I struggle to understand your conclusions.

But let us get back to the topic at hand, shall we good sir?

[edit on 21-10-2008 by infinite]

Um I'm sure that his lifestyle was equivalent to aristocrats. Landowner, slaves, manners, customs, etc. You can look more in closely in his life. Anyways I'm against a domestic agency of such kind since we already have the FBI which is design to fight crime, but can gather intelligence like the CIA when they want to.