One of the most important questions examined after the events of 9/11 was whether the US should create a new domestic intelligence agency. That question was answered in the negative; the nation chose instead to operate a series of non-centralized but coordinated entities and activities to ensure that information bearing on security within the borders of the US are available to all who act to prevent them. In this session, the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, the FBI Executive Assistant Director for Intelligence, and The Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment will present their respective assessments of the state of the homeland intelligence enterprise, and then engage in a dialogue with former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff on what has worked well and what work remains to be done.
Focus Questions:
Was the decision not to create a domestic intelligence agency the right one in your view and why or why not?
How do you assess the ability of federal, state, and local governments to acquire, process, and share high-value information rapidly and securely, using common standards and procedures? The balance between counterterrorism and other threats and hazards within the homeland intelligence enterprise? The balance between counterterrorism and other threats and hazards within the homeland intelligence enterprise?
Some would argue that the culture of intelligence is new—and even antithetical-- to law enforcement and investigative organizations, while others argue that intelligence has always been integral to them. Where do you come down on this issue?