This is a very important article, written by a man with extensive personal experience. Beyond that: anyone who follows the news can see there is a serious problem —- a dangerous situation in our ODNI. I’m still trying to fathom how Congress has approved the nominations of ODNI personnel who have backgrounds of praising the defector Edward Snowden. Who have testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Jan. 6 was an FBI “false flag” operation! Who have fired professional, non-partisan intelligence analysts for findings that raise questions about Donald Trump’s political agenda. And so much more that one wonders how these key US intelligence officials ever got high-level security clearances in the first place.
Thanks for this, Greg, and I agree with you. When I reflect on the questions we are all asked as we seek government employment - with a clearance - these are actions which would normally disqualify any applicant. And, although not specifically responsive to the post, but to the Snowden mention, I suspect most Americans don’t know - and this is particularly true of Edward Snowden - that there is a process for whistleblowing. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Snowdon’s actions, he should have raised his concerns through the system - up to and including the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (HPSCI/SSCI). Find the person with a clearance and blow the whistle if you believe you should. None of us who hold/held clearances has the right to make our own determination on sharing/exposing classified information.
Well said! My concern with respect to the recommendations you propose at the end lie with respect to the massive culture change that the current administration has wrought. So I think we should give some thought to the cultural/institutional changes needed before the recommendations that you (with good reason) propose, in order for those recommendations to be effective. I realize this is a heavy lift!
Keep CI in the FBI and DOJ, but as part of a resurrected independent and professional DOJ and a competent director of the FBI. Other than feeding intel into the CI mix, The DNI hasn’t any business running CI operations and has none of the needed skills, even with a competent DNI, which we most assuredly don’t have today.
Thanks, Ed, for this important post. Two things strike me. First, no business, no educational institution, and no government should make reflexive decisions which could impact the safety and security of the insitition and its people. Second, you are spot on with this statement: “The U.S. should require by law that both the Attorney General and the FBI Director be professionally qualified, nonpartisan leaders exempt from political influence, including political demands from the White House.” This is something all Americans should insist on - regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. It is a hallmark of a healthy democrracy.
This is a very important article, written by a man with extensive personal experience. Beyond that: anyone who follows the news can see there is a serious problem —- a dangerous situation in our ODNI. I’m still trying to fathom how Congress has approved the nominations of ODNI personnel who have backgrounds of praising the defector Edward Snowden. Who have testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Jan. 6 was an FBI “false flag” operation! Who have fired professional, non-partisan intelligence analysts for findings that raise questions about Donald Trump’s political agenda. And so much more that one wonders how these key US intelligence officials ever got high-level security clearances in the first place.
Thanks for this, Greg, and I agree with you. When I reflect on the questions we are all asked as we seek government employment - with a clearance - these are actions which would normally disqualify any applicant. And, although not specifically responsive to the post, but to the Snowden mention, I suspect most Americans don’t know - and this is particularly true of Edward Snowden - that there is a process for whistleblowing. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Snowdon’s actions, he should have raised his concerns through the system - up to and including the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (HPSCI/SSCI). Find the person with a clearance and blow the whistle if you believe you should. None of us who hold/held clearances has the right to make our own determination on sharing/exposing classified information.
Well said! My concern with respect to the recommendations you propose at the end lie with respect to the massive culture change that the current administration has wrought. So I think we should give some thought to the cultural/institutional changes needed before the recommendations that you (with good reason) propose, in order for those recommendations to be effective. I realize this is a heavy lift!
Keep CI in the FBI and DOJ, but as part of a resurrected independent and professional DOJ and a competent director of the FBI. Other than feeding intel into the CI mix, The DNI hasn’t any business running CI operations and has none of the needed skills, even with a competent DNI, which we most assuredly don’t have today.
Thanks, Ed, for this important post. Two things strike me. First, no business, no educational institution, and no government should make reflexive decisions which could impact the safety and security of the insitition and its people. Second, you are spot on with this statement: “The U.S. should require by law that both the Attorney General and the FBI Director be professionally qualified, nonpartisan leaders exempt from political influence, including political demands from the White House.” This is something all Americans should insist on - regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. It is a hallmark of a healthy democrracy.
Ok, sure they should. But they’re not as you’ve pointed out. So, then what?