TO: The Department of Homeland Security.
FROM: A concerned patriotic Citizen.
The purpose of this memo is to appreciate the role of the FBI in combating terrorism. It also seeks to highlight the challenges between the FBI and the law enforcement agencies as well as suggesting some of the solutions to resolving the existing conflicts.
The FBI which is referred to as the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the primary law enforcement of the United States and household agency of intelligence. Its role has consistently grown in late decades, especially its part in counterterrorism after the September 11, 2001, assaults. The Justice Department's best important objective is terrorism prevention, which is reflected in how the FBI distributes resources among its almost thirty-five thousand workers. In the year 2015, the office had more than twelve thousand workers dealing with counterintelligence and counterterrorism. The organization still handles an extensive variety of national security matters, professional wrongdoing, and infringement of civil rights. Its policies and priorities are formed by fragmentary enactment, executive directives of its branches and its leadership. However, this has prompted charges of violating its limits regarding responsibilities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The FBI's best investigative priority is battling terrorism. For over seven decades, the FBI has positioned specialists and other staff abroad to help secure Americans back home. This intelligence unit does this by building associations with chief law implementation agencies, security, and intelligence services the world over. This action helps to foster proper relations between the different security departments and thus to lead to a steady flow of information. The intelligence incorporation in investigations makes the FBI particularly equipped to address these dangers and vulnerabilities. For a considerable length of time, the insight and law authorization groups have kept up an uneven, and on occasion a hostile relationship. This occurrence is mainly as a result of the different cultures and roles of the two groups, as both have various responsibilities and goals, and additionally, expectations in regards to data obtaining and administration, and in light of different end uses for that data. The distinction between issues of national security and those involving criminals is progressively becoming obscured as terrorists continue to violate the law.
Indeed, even as the law authorization and intelligence groups have expanded contact because of interests that are overlapping. Issues can emerge about coordination and participation because the two groups have distinctive objectives, rules, diverse sources and techniques, and different measures in regards to the nature of data they gather (Bayley & Weisburd, 2009). Customarily, intelligence organizations gather intelligence relating to the political and military sectors to be used by makers of policies while law authorization agents assemble data to be used in prosecutions. There are few guidelines overseeing gathering of intelligence. For the most part, it includes abroad activity that is unlawful or attempted with the host government's clandestine collaboration and does not center on U.S. natives. On the other hand, law requirement concentrates essentially inside the borders of the United States, territorial waters or airspace. In implementing those United States laws having extraterritorial application, the law implementation accentuation is upon violations submitted by United States nationals or unlawful or remote exercises that influence U.S. national security, U.S. property or U.S. nationals. An activity of law enforcement outside the United States and within the borders of other nations is normally embraced obviously in collaboration with the host government.
As opposed to law implementation, the Intelligence Community accumulates large measures of data in light of a mind-boggling set of necessities and prerequisites built up by the makers of policies that it supports. This data can be gathered just to create comprehension of an issue, not really in readiness for action. Dissimilar to law implementation data, quite a bit of this information is of faulty dependability and acquired just on the understanding that it won't end up as public knowledge. The gathered data is inspected and assessed by intelligence authorities and investigators who measure its consistent quality and precision.
Conclusion
In my opinion, it is not wise to articulate completely which offices between the insight and law authorization ought to or ought not to create or have contact with human sources abroad. Applying an inflexible mandate to a territory where there is an unending assortment of cases and new conditions would most likely accomplish more mischief than good. Be that as it may, I believe that all foreseen and existing contacts with classified sources in zones where law enforcement and intelligence agencies have overlapping interests, ought to be dealt with by the Chief of Station. The Chief of Station ought to be counseled before any exertion of a law requirement organization to participate in furtive exercises. Any uncertain issues ought to be settled at the central station office of the conflicting groups.
References
Bayley, D. H., & Weisburd, D. (2009 ). Cops and spooks : The role of police in counterterrorism. In To protect and to serve (pp. 81-99). Springer, New York, NY.
Sievert, R. J. (2002). War on terrorism or global law enforcement operation . Notre Dame L. Rev., 78, 307.
