Module 3 – Case
THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Assignment Overview
Why Can’t We Just Talk?
Since the 9/11 attacks, the demands placed on officers have
evolved to include more complex criminal activity, upswings in multi-jurisdictional
criminal matters, and an increased realization that terrorist activity is not
confined by neat boundaries on a map. As a September 2005 report by the
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance noted, “a critical lesson
taken from the tragedy of September 11, 2001, is that intelligence is
everyone’s job,” and “everyone” now includes not only analysts within the
federal government but also law enforcement officers hailing from the nation’s
largest cities to its smallest towns and rural areas.
Indeed, the need for new and better ways to develop and
share law enforcement intelligence was among the first realizations in the
immediate wake of the attacks.
*“In my mind, it [information sharing] comes down to two
things,” FBI Director Robert Mueller stated later in Fall 2001. “First, giving
you [local law enforcement] the information you need to make judgments about
protecting your communities. And second, capitalizing on the ‘force multiplier’
effect that comes when we work together.”
The reality has been much different. As Senator Grassley
commented in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, “Law enforcement and
intelligence agencies tell conflicting stories. Bureaucracies are gearing up to
do battle over who dropped the ball. They’re preparing their defenses. They’re
leaking bits and pieces of information favorable to themselves.”
This situation is described well as the Intelligence
Dilemma: “There are only two outcomes: an operational success and an
intelligence failure.”
*Mueller, R. (2001). Address to the 108th Annual Conference
of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Retrieved from
http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/law-enforcement-cooperation-in-defeating-terrorism
Case Assignment
Look at a high profile case that involved local law
enforcement and the intelligence community. Some choices you might want to look
at include the Boston Marathon Bombing in April 2013, the Ft. Hood shootings in
November 2009, the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, the
foiled Najibullah Zazi’s plot to bomb the New York subways (No information
seems to have been shared with local LE), or another case of your choosing.
Indicate which case you are looking at, and provide a link to the story if
needed.
Summarize the important points of the case, including when
the IC seemed to have information that could have been shared, and which agency
had the information.
Identify 3 reasons that the IC failed to share information.
Indicate whether each is an admission of the IC, a charge made by the LE
community (or another non-LE part of government), or a justified opinion on
your part.
From the perspective of the LE community, rebut the 3
reasons, and summarize how local LE could have re-positioned its efforts to
stop the attack.
Evaluate whether repositioning LE assets as a result of
information sharing would have impacted the final outcome, and whether it would
have been better to share information.
Properly cite your quotations that you use to support your
statements.
Assignment Expectations
Assignments should be at least three pages double-spaced,
not counting the cover or reference page. Paper format: (a) Cover page, (b)
Header, (c) Body. Submit your assignment by the last day of this module.
Relevance—All content is connected to the question.
Precision—Specific question is addressed. Statements, facts,
and statistics are specific and accurate.
Depth of discussion—Present and integrate points that lead
to deeper issues.
Breadth—Multiple perspectives and references, multiple
issues/factors considered.
Evidence—Points are well-supported with facts, statistics
and references.
Logic—Presented discussion makes sense; conclusions are
logically supported by premises, statements, or factual information.
Clarity—Writing is concise, understandable, and contains
sufficient detail or examples.
Objectivity—Avoids use of first person and subjective bias.
References—Sources are listed at the end of the paper (APA
style preferred).
