What's in the intelligence act? Contrary to much of the reporting in the major media, few aspects of the Intelligence Reform Act are actually designed to safeguard Americans.(On The Home Front)

Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin, 1755

"Our vast intelligence enterprise will become more unified, coordinated and effective," said President Bush at the December 17 signing of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. "It will enable us to better do our duty, which is to protect the American people." The legislation, which will effect the largest overhaul of the U.S. intelligence community in 50 years, emerged from stormy battles in Congress that pitted congressional conservatives against a coalition of liberal Republicans and Democrats led by the Bush White House. It was approved by the House by a vote of 336 to 75, and in the Senate 89 to 2.

Huge, bipartisan majorities, however, are often a signal for caution, not jubilation. They frequently coalesce around issues that are symbolic and irrelevant, or are driven by emotional, media-hyped campaigns--like this one. In the latter case, we invariably end up with another massive, intrusive, abusive, costly layer of government, which, the politicians invariably assure us, is for our own safety.

The bill runs to 563 pages of legalese and will hugely impact our lives. Like many bills, its title is somewhat deceptive. It has very little to do with intelligence reform, being primarily concerned with reorganization, with centralizing and politicizing intelligence and police powers. A primary feature of the legislation is the creation of the post of Director of National Intelligence, whom both supporters and opponents have tellingly referred to as an "intelligence czar." Totalitarian regimes have need for intelligence czars; constitutional republics do not.

True reform would entail cleaning out officials in the existing intelligence agencies, who are guilty of criminal negligence, corruption, coverup--and worse. But, as we have detailed in previous articles, the evidence of top-level malfeasance has been swept under the rug. Instead of being investigated, demoted, fired, and/or prosecuted, some of the worst offenders have been, and are being, promoted. This being the case, we can rearrange the intelligence flow chart boxes all day and never really "reform" intelligence--or prevent future terrorism.

True reform also would entail a primary focus on plugging the gaping holes in our border security, as well as our immigration, customs, and visa processes. The architects of the conference report, however, insisted that these matters should not be allowed to stand in the way of the (allegedly) more pressing issue of intelligence reorganization. This much is elementary, and should be patently obvious: every foreign national who enters the U.S. (whether legally or illegally) presents a challenge to our intelligence community. Is he/she a terrorist or terrorist asset? Does it make more sense to put security procedures in place at the border, at ports of entry, and at our consular offices abroad to screen out terrorists before they enter our country, or to attempt to develop intelligence on these aliens after they've entered and disappeared into the U.S. population? The latter option, clearly, cannot reasonably claim to be an advance for intelligence.