Spy Agency
- Thread starter big bad john
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
They got some more money after 9-11...but that was a while ago...the funding was meant for a 5 year time frame I think...in any case, there have been government studies done on the costs of establishing a foreign intelligence gathering capacity...and its surprisingly not that much...so there's no better time than now to do this...I think the biggest problem is that alot of politicians will be opposed to Canada spying on other countries and what not...the biggest obstacle as always is the political stuff...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Why do some people use ellipses instead of periods or commas when they write in the internet?
Anyway, there are some issues involved when it comes to the difference between collecting foreign intelligence, and security intelligence. There are also issues of compartmentation (I know, you'll say, that was the problem with 9-11). I think it should be instructive that most nations that have foreign intelligence services maintain them separate from their security services. Are we so arrogant to believe we can do things differently?
I'm not going to get into methods, sources or the way certain agencies operate, but hope you'll accept it when I claim that regardless of how we implement a foreign int service (be it based on CSIS or a new independent agency) it will take many years to become truly functional.
Acorn
Anyway, there are some issues involved when it comes to the difference between collecting foreign intelligence, and security intelligence. There are also issues of compartmentation (I know, you'll say, that was the problem with 9-11). I think it should be instructive that most nations that have foreign intelligence services maintain them separate from their security services. Are we so arrogant to believe we can do things differently?
I'm not going to get into methods, sources or the way certain agencies operate, but hope you'll accept it when I claim that regardless of how we implement a foreign int service (be it based on CSIS or a new independent agency) it will take many years to become truly functional.
Acorn
I believe the separation of foreign and security intelligence services have to do with the mandate and â Å“rulesâ ? surrounding each type of organization. Security intelligence organizations usually have strict operating parameters that they must adhere to, in part to protect our right to privacy. Foreign intelligence organizations typically do not have these types of limitations.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Acorn:
1)"Why do some people use ellipses instead of periods or commas when they write in the internet?"
I'm sorry, I'll refrain from doing so in the future. I tend to write the way I think, in spurts.
2)"Anyway, there are some issues involved when it comes to the difference between collecting foreign intelligence, and security intelligence. There are also issues of compartmentation (I know, you'll say, that was the problem with 9-11). I think it should be instructive that most nations that have foreign intelligence services maintain them separate from their security services. Are we so arrogant to believe we can do things differently?"
Point taken. I should clarify my position however. What I mean is that I think it would be wise if we established a foreign intelligence capacity within CSIS so as to avoid the rivalry, bureaucratic in-fighting etc. that exists in the situation of the FBI/CIA for example. Now I am not saying we should create some super intelligence organization that just runs amok. I mean that within CSIS there should be a secutiy intelligence division and a foreign intelligence division. This would be useful in the event that coordination needs to take place, or information sharing needs to occur. I've heard of numerous times where CSIS has had a heck of a time getting info and cooperation from the RCMP for example. And we all know about the relations between the CIA and the FBI. If both branches are working in the same building, under the same umbrealla I think it would generate a better intelligence process.
I understand that securtiy intelligence and foreiign intelligence are two different beasts, but you have to admit that there is alot of overlap as well. Of course there are benefits and disadvantages with every system, but I think the more problems would arise if we started to create more agencies, for a number of reasons I will not get into. Again, let me emphasize that I am not saying that we just have some general intelligence gathering agency that has a bunch of multi-purpose agents who work on both securtiy intelligence and foreign intelligence, I mean having an agency with 2 branches or something along those lines. Besides, if we were to establish a foreign intelligence agency, where do you think most of its personnel would come from? When CSIS was created, the majority of its intial employees were drawn from its predecessor, the disbanded RCMP security service. IMO, a Canadian foreign int agency wold probably be drawing on the knowledge of CSIS throughout its creation and afterwards.
2-"I'm not going to get into methods, sources or the way certain agencies operate, but hope you'll accept it when I claim that regardless of how we implement a foreign int service (be it based on CSIS or a new independent agency) it will take many years to become truly functional."
I have to disagree with you on this point. History as always is instructional in this respect. In WWII, both the allies and the axis were able to build up extensive and very effective HUMINT networks in relatively short periods of time. Take for example the OSS in the US, which was built up from scratch in just 18 months, and became a pretty succesfull organization with a vast network of sources and agents. What it boils down to is not a lack of expertise or anything along those lines, what is needed is political will and political backing, and motivated government officials that are committed to the task, who are willing to make tough decisions, and who are capable of generating the resources needed to implement the undertaking. And thats what I think is lacking in Canada. Like I said in an earlier post, the biggest obstacle to creating a foreing intelligence agency in Cannada is that it is a politically touchy issue. The idea of a Foreign Int agency leaves a bad bad taste in alot of Canadians' mouths and that's why politicians are loathe to delve to deeply into the subject. I wish there were more David Pratts and Colin Kenneys out there!
Contrary to what you say, IMO I think that Canada has alot of advantages that would make it alot easier for us to creat a foreign int capacity. One of the most imporant is our extremely diverse and mulicultural society. Because we don't subscribe to the US melting pot mentality, our multicultural society is in itself is an untapped resource. If we took advantage of things like that we could truly create an amazing intelligence capacity. The resources are there, in our civilian pop, in our universities, in CSIS, in the CF, in the government...what we are missing is politcians who do not understand the issues and who are afraid to get their hands dirty. Some food for thought anyway...
I appreciate your input Acorn. You are after all someone who is in the business. I, on the other hand, am a smarmy grad student who has yet to get my feet wet. So I would understand if you take my arguments as maybe too academic. I am just trying to contribute to the debate!
1)"Why do some people use ellipses instead of periods or commas when they write in the internet?"
I'm sorry, I'll refrain from doing so in the future. I tend to write the way I think, in spurts.
2)"Anyway, there are some issues involved when it comes to the difference between collecting foreign intelligence, and security intelligence. There are also issues of compartmentation (I know, you'll say, that was the problem with 9-11). I think it should be instructive that most nations that have foreign intelligence services maintain them separate from their security services. Are we so arrogant to believe we can do things differently?"
Point taken. I should clarify my position however. What I mean is that I think it would be wise if we established a foreign intelligence capacity within CSIS so as to avoid the rivalry, bureaucratic in-fighting etc. that exists in the situation of the FBI/CIA for example. Now I am not saying we should create some super intelligence organization that just runs amok. I mean that within CSIS there should be a secutiy intelligence division and a foreign intelligence division. This would be useful in the event that coordination needs to take place, or information sharing needs to occur. I've heard of numerous times where CSIS has had a heck of a time getting info and cooperation from the RCMP for example. And we all know about the relations between the CIA and the FBI. If both branches are working in the same building, under the same umbrealla I think it would generate a better intelligence process.
I understand that securtiy intelligence and foreiign intelligence are two different beasts, but you have to admit that there is alot of overlap as well. Of course there are benefits and disadvantages with every system, but I think the more problems would arise if we started to create more agencies, for a number of reasons I will not get into. Again, let me emphasize that I am not saying that we just have some general intelligence gathering agency that has a bunch of multi-purpose agents who work on both securtiy intelligence and foreign intelligence, I mean having an agency with 2 branches or something along those lines. Besides, if we were to establish a foreign intelligence agency, where do you think most of its personnel would come from? When CSIS was created, the majority of its intial employees were drawn from its predecessor, the disbanded RCMP security service. IMO, a Canadian foreign int agency wold probably be drawing on the knowledge of CSIS throughout its creation and afterwards.
2-"I'm not going to get into methods, sources or the way certain agencies operate, but hope you'll accept it when I claim that regardless of how we implement a foreign int service (be it based on CSIS or a new independent agency) it will take many years to become truly functional."
I have to disagree with you on this point. History as always is instructional in this respect. In WWII, both the allies and the axis were able to build up extensive and very effective HUMINT networks in relatively short periods of time. Take for example the OSS in the US, which was built up from scratch in just 18 months, and became a pretty succesfull organization with a vast network of sources and agents. What it boils down to is not a lack of expertise or anything along those lines, what is needed is political will and political backing, and motivated government officials that are committed to the task, who are willing to make tough decisions, and who are capable of generating the resources needed to implement the undertaking. And thats what I think is lacking in Canada. Like I said in an earlier post, the biggest obstacle to creating a foreing intelligence agency in Cannada is that it is a politically touchy issue. The idea of a Foreign Int agency leaves a bad bad taste in alot of Canadians' mouths and that's why politicians are loathe to delve to deeply into the subject. I wish there were more David Pratts and Colin Kenneys out there!
Contrary to what you say, IMO I think that Canada has alot of advantages that would make it alot easier for us to creat a foreign int capacity. One of the most imporant is our extremely diverse and mulicultural society. Because we don't subscribe to the US melting pot mentality, our multicultural society is in itself is an untapped resource. If we took advantage of things like that we could truly create an amazing intelligence capacity. The resources are there, in our civilian pop, in our universities, in CSIS, in the CF, in the government...what we are missing is politcians who do not understand the issues and who are afraid to get their hands dirty. Some food for thought anyway...
I appreciate your input Acorn. You are after all someone who is in the business. I, on the other hand, am a smarmy grad student who has yet to get my feet wet. So I would understand if you take my arguments as maybe too academic. I am just trying to contribute to the debate!
Similar threads
