Global terrorism, understaffing and the FBI<\/p>\n
Dini Djalal, Editor, 'Aksara', Jakarta<\/p>\n
Paul McCabe has been an agent of the Federal Bureau of
\nInvestigations, or FBI, for 16 years, working first as an
\nundercover agent, and then as both a special agent and the media
\ncoordinator of the Joint-Terrorism Task Force, based in
\nMinneapolis, Minnesota.<\/p>\n
The Task Force, established in 1999, coordinates the findings
\nof the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS),
\nthe Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Secret Service. The
\nFBI has seven types of squads, investigating everything from
\npublic corruption to kidnappings, but its counter-terrorism squad
\nis now top priority.<\/p>\n
He spoke in St Paul, Minessota to this writer, who is in the
\nUnited States for on a four-month journalism fellowship from the
\nWorld Press Institute.<\/p>\n
The Minneapolis office, which serves three states, saw little
\nfanfare until earlier this year, when a letter written by agent
\nColleen Rowley was leaked to the press. The statement, part of a
\nCongressional hearing, said that information from the Minneapolis
\nbureau about suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was not dealt
\nwith swiftly by FBI headquarters in Washington DC. Rowley
\nunwillingly became a controversial figure, and McCabe spent the
\nfollowing weeks hounded by calls from the media.<\/p>\n
As the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks nears, the FBI is
\nunder greater pressure and scrutiny to protect the United States
\nfrom a repeat attack. A reorganization of the force, particularly
\nits cooperation -- or lack of -- with the Central Intelligence
\nAgency, or CIA, is in the works. There is also more intense
\ninformation-sharing with intelligence agencies in vital partners
\nsuch as Russia, Pakistan, and the Philipines; the FBI has offices
\nin 53 countries (the closest office to Indonesia is in
\nSingapore).<\/p>\n
The following are excerpts from the conversation:
\nQuestion: Why is the Task Force based in Minnesota?
\nAnswer: We had the first Weapons of Mass Destruction case in
\nMinnesota, in the mid 1990s. The case involved an anti-government
\ngroup, and they had stock of ricin, a very potent biological
\nweapon. The group had gotten it off the internet.<\/p>\n
They were not a very well-organized group, but if you look at
\nTimothy McVeigh (the culprit of the Oklahoma bombings), the
\nloners and the loosely-knit groups are harder to gather
\nintelligence on. This was the first case under the Weapons of
\nMass Destruction law, and they were all convicted.<\/p>\n
A lot of people think that Minnesota is insulated from the
\nproblems of the world. But we had a lot of Somali organizations
\nthat were shut down, and they were related to some terrorist
\norganizations.
\nIs power within the FBI shifting back to Washington?<\/p>\n
It's a back and forth thing. When I first joined, special
\nagents had a lot of authority. Then it shifted back to
\ncentralized control. Now it's shifting back authority to special
\nagents in charge, but it also wants to make sure that the
\ninformation gathered can be funneled at the main office.
\nIs the FBI improving its technology?<\/p>\n
Our computers are archaic! I was excited when we got Windows
\n95 but everybody had gotten Windows 2000! Every three years, our
\ncomputers become paperweights on our desks.<\/p>\n
But we are currently upgrading our technology to a system
\ncalled Trilogy. It's a huge improvement. Sixteen years ago, we
\nweren't even using computers.
\nDo you have a central database?<\/p>\n
For security reasons, we're still not connected that way. And
\nonce again, it still costs a lot of money.
\nAre the criticisms about the FBI's intelligence gathering ability
\nvalid?<\/p>\n
We were great at gathering intelligence, but we don't have
\nenough analysts to process it all. For example, the recruitment
\nof 900 more officers -- that's probably just going to replace the
\n900 who are leaving the force.<\/p>\n
But we are more focused in our recruiting; we are pushing for
\nengineers, scientists, computer scientists. For us to keep our
\ntechnology ahead of the bad guys is a challenge in itself. So you
\nhave to look for those people who have these (technical) skills
\nbut want to be agents. And it's a massive pay cut! Usually those
\nwho join say, they've always wanted to be an FBI agent and that
\nthe money is not a factor.<\/p>\n
We're also hiring 1,000 professional support employees,
\nincluding lab analysts. And we are trying to push for better
\nwages so that we get more qualified people.<\/p>\n
Are the two agencies, the FBI and the CIA, not sharing
\ninformation?<\/p>\n
To some extent that maybe true, but that's on a division to
\ndivision basis. The roles of the CIA and the FBI are quite
\ndifferent, and a lot of times we have no idea (what intelligence
\nwork) the others are doing. These are very secret, national-
\nsecurity type issues. Leaks can be very damaging.<\/p>\n
If the CIA brings information, we have to look at the
\ninformation and see whether we can follow it up under available
\nstatutes. Often we don't prosecute and instead continue the
\noperation so we don't lose that intelligence source.<\/p>\n
We may also have information that we don't share with the CIA.
\nNow we are sharing more information, but that means more
\npotential for more leaks. It's always a hard decision, but the
\nmain objective is stopping terrorism.
\nHow does the FBI operate in foreign countries?<\/p>\n
We are (in foreign countries) at the welcome mat of those
\ncountries. We have no jurisdiction; it's strictly a liaison
\neffort. We are there only as long as the countries want to keep
\nus there.
\nAre the FBI doing more wiretaps of computers?<\/p>\n
We can wiretap a computer as we can a telephone, but there are
\nvery strict guidelines. We have to go through a lot of
\nprocedures, such as get an affidavit. We have to go before a
\njudge who has to sign off that there is probable cause (for this
\nmethod of investigation). A lot of the time this time line can be
\ndamaging.<\/p>\n
But basically, we don't even have enough manpower to track
\ndown what the criminals are doing, we're so understaffed. So we
\ncan't tap every phone call and computer.
\nWho does the FBI answer to?<\/p>\n
There are a number of congressional panels that we report to,
\nbecause in the past, there have been abuses (by the FBI). We get
\nroutine polygraphs and background checks. I like it, because if
\ntheres a bad FBI agent out there, I want him out.
\nWhat happened in the Colleen Rowley case?<\/p>\n
I can't get into a lot of detail on that because it is under
\ncongressional inquiry. Some agents were disappointed because they
\nthought that she went to the press -- she did not. It was leaked,
\nand she was shocked when the whole letter was released. It was
\npart of congressional inquiry; she had no idea that it would turn
\ninto this. It wasn't something that was meant to go public. She's
\na very loyal FBI agent and she is very loyal still. You'll read
\nthat Colleen's story is responsible for the FBI reorganization.
\nThis is not true. The reorganization has been in the works for
\nseveral months.
\nWas the investigation into the anthrax cases a failure?<\/p>\n
It's still an ongoing investigation. This is a big, open, free
\ncountry, and some investigations are very, very difficult. One
\nthing we don't do is give up. I wouldn't call it a failure yet.
\nWe wish it could be solved, but when you look at the number of
\nmail in this country, it's a very difficult thing. It doesn't
\nhappen overnight.
\nWhat are the FBI's focus of investigations now?<\/p>\n
We are very concerned about biological weapons, and nuclear
\nweapons. We know that there is a black market on weapons from the
\nformer Soviet Union; that's why we work closely with intelligence
\nin these countries.
\nWhat about investigations of activities on the internet?<\/p>\n
Two months ago, as an FBI agent, I could not go on the
\ninternet to look at the websites of hate groups, when all other
\nAmericans could. When people say we have incredible powers, that
\nis just not true. If I did, I could be charged. Because of the
\nfreedom of speech in this country, it's a touchy line. For us to
\nget involved, there almost has to be a specific threat, before we
\nhave federal criminal authority. It's a fine line when freedom of
\nspeech crosses into a hate crime.<\/p>\n
Also, in the past, people were very suspicious of Big Brother
\nWatching, because there have been abuses. But hopefully it's a
\nnew FBI and there will not be any of these problems.
\nHow do you deal with questions from the media?<\/p>\n
It's ongoing investigation and I can't talk to them about it.
\nBut it is a tightrope I walk. Many nights I walk home thinking I
\nwill be fired one day for saying too much.
\nWhat did you feel on Sept. 11th?<\/p>\n
I was in my office, and I looked up and saw the size of the
\nhole, and knew that it was not a small plane. Then when we saw
\nthe other plane hit, we knew immediately that it was not a
\ncoincidence. We immediately made a decision to set up our command
\npost, and had that set up within an hour; we set it up before
\nheadquarters told us to.<\/p>\n
Then we relayed information to headquarters about the
\nintelligence we had -- the calls and the tips started coming in
\nimmediately. It was a sick feeling because we knew that as the
\nFBI, our task is to protect the country. We felt somewhat
\nresponsible.<\/p>\n
The author also writes for the Hong Kong-based weekly
\nnewsmagazine The Far Eastern Economic Review .<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/global-terrorism-understaffing-and-the-fbi-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}