Jeff smith dating
If you think for a moment about the number of breweries in the world, is it reasonable to expect that any organization could identify every brewery in somebody's garage, in some obscure part of the world, that might be trying to "cook" a biological weapon that they want to launch against the United States? My own view is that we ought to look at the procedures and rules under which they operate.
It is physically not possible, and I think that nothing would be served by having an exercise in keelhauling U. We ought to look at the manner in which cooperation occurs or doesn't occur between the U. intelligence community and the law enforcement community.
And the law now is such that, when you start down one course, it's very hard, if not impossible, to shift to the other course, because the Title 3 wiretaps are developed and in place for criminal prosecutions--the Mafia, drug investigations, and so on--and that's designed with a very specific set of rules governing the manner in which wiretaps will be conducted, ultimately, to be introduced in court, designed to protect the rights of the defendant. The fundamental purpose is to collect as much information as you can--largely about non-Americans, but occasionally about Americans--and there's never the intention that it will be used in prosecutions.
The same issue sometimes arises in counterintelligence investigations. Well, terrorism, but also trying to find spies in the United States.
These are questions that arise from time to time, yes, and I think... The question of, is this particular investigation that the United States is conducting a law enforcement investigation that's going to lead to a trial?
Or is it an intelligence investigation designed to produce intelligence which might lead to some other action, a military action, a diplomatic response, or an arrest overseas, or intelligence activities to disrupt it?
We ought to look at the way in which our government deals with foreign governments, the amount of information shared back and forth, and we need to build the kind of coalitions that the president is talking about. Prior to 1978, the law was that the president, on his own, could authorize the interception of electronic communications in the United States for national security purposes without a warrant.
The only thing that comes anywhere close is the War Powers Resolution, also passed in that same era, which is widely ignored.We did successfully retrieve Ramzi Yousef, the individual responsible for the World Trade Center bombing, working overseas and in cooperation with foreign governments. In your experience--because you start with the Cold War--[as] we come to the present, to modern-day terrorism in the post-Soviet era, has it been really a breakdown not so much of intelligence, but of cultural understanding of what we're dealing with?We also got the man who murdered three people outside the CIA in 1993, again, working overseas, by successfully managing to penetrate these groups. Every action has a reaction, and it's hard to predict what will happen when we take something that, at the time, seems a very sensible and responsible thing to do. But he has been able to regroup in Afghanistan, and has gotten support from the Taliban. Well, in many respects it was much easier to deal with the Soviet Union.I'm not sure that they necessarily lead to the failure.You say "intelligence task," and...frankly, the word "intelligence" gets thrown around, now, every day, thousands of times a day. In an ideal situation, the United States, either on its own or working with its allies, would be able to recruit a source, a human source inside these terrorist organizations, or a series of sources very close to them.