CSIS

September 21, 2004

The Principles below have been endorsed by David Boren, Bill Bradley, Frank Carlucci, William Cohen, Robert Gates, John Hamre, Gary Hart, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, Warren Rudman, and George Shultz.

Guiding Principles for
Intelligence Reform

AMERICA'S SECURITY DEPENDS ON STRENGTHENING OUR INTELLIGENCE collection and analysis. Debate is under way on intelligence reform, and harnessing the energy of an election season is a healthy way to assure the issue receives the attention it deserves. Racing to implement reforms on an election timetable is precisely the wrong thing to do. Intelligence reform is too complex and too important to undertake at a campaign's breakneck speed. Based on our experience in both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government and on both sides of the political aisle, these are the basic principles we believe should guide any reform effort:

Identify the Problems

Rushing in with solutions before we understand all the problems is a recipe for failure. Only after a full appreciation of the Intelligence Community's problems—and its strengths—can sensible decisions be made about reform, including whether to restructure. Moreover, reform will have to be comprehensive to succeed. Addressing this or that shortcoming—however grave—in isolation will fail to produce the improvement in intelligence capabilities our nation's security demands.

Strengthen the Intelligence Community's Leader

The individual responsible for leading the Intelligence Community must be empowered with authority commensurate with his or her responsibility. Specifically and crucially, future leaders must have the ability to align personnel and resources with national intelligence priorities. Whether we maintain the Intelligence Community's current structure or create a new one, we must ensure that the Intelligence Community's leader has the tools to do his or her job.

Separate Intelligence from Policy

A fundamental principle for Intelligence Community reform must be that the intelligence community remains independent from policymakers. Nothing could be more important to a healthy national security structure. When intelligence and policy are too closely tied, the demands of policymakers can distort intelligence and intelligence analysts can hijack the policy development process. It is crucial to ensuring this separation that the Intelligence Community leader have no policy role. Otherwise, an Intelligence Community leader's voice could overwhelm those of Cabinet

**David Boren**
Former Senator from Oklahoma

**Bill Bradley**
Former Senator from New Jersey

**Frank Carlucci**
Former Secretary of Defense

**William Cohen**
Former Secretary of Defense and
Senator from Maine

**Robert Gates**
Former Director of Central
Intelligence

**John Hamre**
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense

**Gary Hart**
Former Senator from Colorado

**Henry Kissinger**
Former Secretary of State and
National Security Advisor

**Sam Nunn**
Former Senator from Georgia

**Warren Rudman**
Former Senator from New
Hampshire

**George Shultz**
Former Secretary of State

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR INTELLIGENCE REFORM

page two

secretaries and the National Security Advisor and deprive the President of the benefit of robust, informed policy debate. A single individual with the last word on intelligence and a say in policy as well could be a dangerously powerful actor in the national security arena—using intelligence to advocate for particular policy positions, budget requests, or weapons systems that others lacked the knowledge to challenge.

For this reason, the leader of the Intelligence Community should not work inside the White House; he or she should be at arm's length from the policy process, not at the President's right hand. Nor should the leader become an instrument of diplomacy or policy formulation; his or her role should be to support others in these functions. Similarly, Intelligence Community reform must not rob Cabinet secretaries of their own ability to assess intelligence by centralizing the bulk of assessment resources; the secretaries must be able to turn to their own analysts for independent perspective and be able to task the Intelligence Community leader for input to the policymaking process. Finally, to protect against an unhealthy mixing of functions, we believe the person who is chosen to lead the Intelligence Community should be broadly acceptable to both parties and chosen for his or her substantive or management expertise.

## Improve the Quality of Analysis

Intellectual conformity and failure of analytical imagination have been the major culprits in most intelligence breakdowns, from our failure to predict accurately India and Pakistan's nuclear tests, to our misjudgment of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. Improving the quality of the analysis on which policy makers rely must therefore be a top reform priority. The best analysis emerges from a competitive environment where different perspectives are welcomed and alternative hypotheses are encouraged. Intelligence reform must institutionalize these traits in the analytical process. To preserve their independence, analysts must be insulated from policy and political pressure. Finally, we must not only concern ourselves with the appropriate structure of intelligence analysis, we must also address the critical shortage of human expertise in critical fields. Funding for programs to address this deficiency is dangerously low and the trust funds for the National Security Education Program will be fully depleted within the next two years unless Congress acts.

## Ensure More Effective Information-Sharing

Intelligence Community players have overwhelming cultural and bureaucratic incentives not to share their information with each other or with those outside the community. These include a natural impulse to hoard information to protect turf, and a deeply ingrained passion for secrecy. Domestic agencies and foreign agencies, in particular, traditionally have resisted sharing information with each other. Yet our nation has learned with painful clarity that failure to share, coordinate, and connect available intelligence can have devastating consequences. The next time an FBI special agent suspects an Arizona flight trainee is an al Qaeda terrorist, the Intelligence Community needs to know. Reform must fundamentally alter agency incentives and culture to require sharing. This must include addressing the excessive emphasis on secrecy and classification that inhibits constructive, timely information flows, while continuing to respect the need to protect genuine sources and methods.

## Protect Civil Liberties

Collection of intelligence is inherently intrusive; spying on fellow citizens carries with it great potential for abuse. Even as we merge the domestic and foreign intelligence we collect, we should not merge responsibility for collecting it. Intelligence reform might well create a single strategic coordinator of domestic and overseas collection on cross-border threats like terrorism, but exclusive responsibility for authorizing and overseeing the act of domestic intelligence collection should remain with the Attorney General. This is the only way to protect the rights of the American people upon whose support a strong intelligence community depends.

page three

[L]

## Preserve Situational Awareness for Tactical Military Operations

As we have seen from the skies over Bosnia to the sands and cities of Afghanistan and Iraq, tactical intelligence and situational awareness are indispensable to our military's unparalleled operational success. Any successful intelligence reform must respect the military's need to maintain a robust, organic tactical intelligence capability and to have rapid access to national intelligence assets and information.

## Assure Clarity of Authority for Clandestine Operations

The war on terrorism has blurred agency roles for some critical national security activities. The Department of Defense now performs more clandestine and intelligence operations than in the past; meanwhile, the CIA's Directorate of Operations engages more in traditional military functions, such as the successful campaign in Afghanistan. Authority for these newer roles is murky, and there are sometimes disparities in the type or level of approval needed for an operation, depending on who performs it. The new challenges we face mandate a wide range of tools and creative approaches to intelligence. But establishing absolute clarity of chain of command, oversight, and accountability for clandestine operations is essential.

## Reform Congressional Oversight Too

Intelligence reform will not succeed unless Congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community becomes more effective as well. Rather than relying on review of agency submissions and after-the-fact investigation of failures or abuses, Congress should reach out periodically to test and assure the Community's health. Whether meaningful legislative oversight demands a major overhaul of committee structure or merely a change of philosophy, Congressional reform is as vital as changes affecting the Executive Branch.

Elections are a perfect time for debate, but a terrible time for decision-making. When it comes to intelligence reform, Americans should not settle for adjustments that are driven by the calendar instead of common sense; they deserve a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to these critical issues. If, as seems likely, Congress considers it essential to act now on certain structural reforms, we believe it has an obligation to return to this issue early next year in the 109th Congress to address these issues more comprehensively. We hope the principles we've suggested will help shape serious discussion of reform.

CSIS

September 21, 2004

Identify the Problems

page two

## Protect Civil Liberties

page three

September 21, 2004

# Joint Declaration: Guiding Principles for Intelligence Reform

AMERICA'S SECURITY DEPENDS ON STRENGTHENING OUR INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS. DEBATE IS under way on intelligence reform, and harnessing the energy of an election season is a healthy way to assure the issue receives the attention it deserves. *Racing to implement reforms on an election timetable is precisely the wrong thing to do.* Intelligence reform is too complex and too important to undertake at a campaign's breakneck speed. Based on our experience in both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government and on both sides of the political aisle, these are the basic principles we believe should guide any reform effort.

## Identify the Problems

## Strengthen the Intelligence Community's Leader

## Separate Intelligence from Policy

A fundamental principle for Intelligence Community reform must be that the intelligence community remains independent from policymakers. Nothing could be more important to a healthy national security structure. When intelligence and policy are too closely tied, the demands of policymakers can distort intelligence and intelligence analysts can hijack the policy development process. It is crucial to ensuring this separation that the Intelligence Community leader have no policy role. Otherwise, an Intelligence Community leader's voice could overwhelm those of Cabinet secretaries and the National Security Advisor and deprive the President of the benefit of robust, informed policy debate. A single individual with the last word on intelligence and a say in policy as well could be a dangerously powerful actor in the national security arena—using intelligence to advocate for particular policy positions, budget requests, or weapons systems that others lacked the knowledge to challenge.

page two

## Protect Civil Liberties

page three

David Boren

Bill Bradley

Frank Carlucci

William Cohen

Robert Gates

John Hamre

Gary Hart

Henry Kissinger

Sam Nunn

Warren Rudman

George Shultz

Theresa Cimino

**From:** John Geis [JGeis@csis.org]
**Sent:** Monday, September 20, 2004 4:25 PM
**To:** tcimino@kmaglobal.com
**Subject:** Final Draft

Teresa,

I've attached the final document. We actually have a nicer (external) version which we are formatting now. I'll
send that to you once it's ready. Below is the list of people who have signed off.

Gary Hart
David Boren
Warren Rudman
Bill Bradley
Sam Nunn
William Cohen
George Schultz
Frank Carlucci
Robert Gates

Please let me know if you have any questions.

John Geis
Executive Officer to the President
Center for Strategic and International Studies
(202) 775-3298 (Phone)
(202) 463-7224 (Fax)
jgeis@csis.org

11/10/2004

***FINAL DRAFT***

[c]

September 20, 2004

# Guiding Principles for Intelligence Reform

America's security depends on strengthening our intelligence collection and analysis. Debate is under way on intelligence reform, and harnessing the energy of an election season is a healthy way to assure the issue receives the attention it deserves. *Racing to implement reforms on an election timetable is precisely the wrong thing to do.* Intelligence reform is too complex and too important to undertake at a campaign's breakneck speed. Based on our experience in both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government and on both sides of the political aisle, these are the basic principles we believe should guide any reform effort:

* **Identify the Problems**

Rushing in with solutions before we understand all the problems is a recipe for failure. Only after a full appreciation of the Intelligence Community's problems – and its strengths – can sensible decisions be made about reform, including whether to restructure. Moreover, reform will have to be comprehensive to succeed. Addressing this or that shortcoming – however grave – in isolation will fail to produce the improvement in intelligence capabilities our nation's security demands.

* **Strengthen the Intelligence Community's Leader**

* **Separate Intelligence from Policy**

A fundamental principle for Intelligence Community reform must be that the intelligence community remains independent from policymakers. Nothing could be more important to a healthy national security structure. When intelligence and policy are too closely tied, the demands of policymakers can distort intelligence and intelligence analysts can hijack the policy development process. It is crucial to ensuring this separation that the Intelligence Community leader have no policy role. Otherwise, an Intelligence Community leader's voice could overwhelm those of Cabinet secretaries and the National Security Advisor and deprive the President of the benefit of robust, informed policy debate. A single individual with the last word on intelligence and a say in policy as well could be a dangerously powerful actor in the national security arena – using intelligence to advocate for particular policy positions, budget requests, or weapons systems that others lacked the knowledge to challenge.

**FINAL DRAFT**

September 20, 2004

* **Improve the Quality of Analysis**

* **Ensure More Effective Information-Sharing**

* **Protect Civil Liberties**

***FINAL DRAFT***

September 20, 2004

* Preserve Situational Awareness for Tactical Military Operations

* Assure Clarity of Authority for Clandestine Operations

* Reform Congressional Oversight Too

Elections are a perfect time for debate, but a terrible time for decision-making. When it comes to intelligence reform, Americans should not settle for adjustments that are driven by the calendar instead of common sense; they deserve a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to these critical issues. If, as seems likely, Congress considers it essential to act now on certain structural reforms, we believe it has an obligation at the start of the 109th Congress to address these issues more comprehensively. We hope the principles we've suggested will help shape serious discussion of reform.

MEMORANDUM

**TO:** Dr. Kissinger
**FROM:** Stape Roy
**DATE:** September 17, 2004
**SUBJECT:** Comments on Guiding Principles for Intelligence Reform

This is an excellent paper that makes many valuable points. It covers the main issues that need to be addressed, and there are no glaring errors or omissions. The group endorsing the principles also consists of respected individuals whose views carry weight among informed observers and policy makers. However, it is tilted toward the Democratic side, and in the politically charged atmosphere of an election campaign, I believe your views will carry more weight if you express them as an individual rather than joining a group structured along present lines. That would not preclude endorsing the principles as an outside commentator.

That said, I believe there are a number of areas where the paper could be strengthened. My comments are keyed to particular sections of the paper.

Some additional distinctions would be useful in this paragraph. The Intelligence Community should not be the tool of policymakers, but it should serve them. The analytical function needs to be distanced from the preferences of policymakers so that analytical conclusions, to the maximum extent possible, are based on the evidence and not on the policy preferences of particular policymakers. Collection, on the other hand, should reflect policy priorities, and covert action should be under the close control and scrutiny of policymakers. This does not require putting the intelligence chief in the office of the president, which is a bad idea. The intelligence chief should not have a policy role or a formal position as a member of policy bodies. But the statement that the Intelligence Community should remain independent from policymakers is too stark and does not incorporate the distinctions among intelligence functions that need to be made.

As recent events have shown, group think is a major danger that can afflict the Intelligence Community. However, intellectual conformity and failure of analytical imagination are not the only sources of intelligence breakdowns. A major contributing factor is the inadequacy of the information base, an inherent problem in the intelligence function since it deals with types of information that are rigorously guarded by the possessors of the information. As a result, intelligence analysts are all too frequently forced to make analytical judgments with key pieces of information missing. Strengthening collection is one way of addressing this problem, but it can never solve the conundrum in a fully satisfactory way. One should not expect too much from intelligence. What you can expect is that collection inadequacies are addressed properly, and that analytical judgments are professionally sound and not distorted by poor coordination of the

2

available information. The second problem, as you have noted, is that some so-called intelligence failures are really policy failures. A word or two about these factors would strengthen this section.

In addition, it is true that encouraging different perspectives and alternative hypotheses is desirable, but this also poses risks. Policymakers can cherry-pick among competing hypotheses and select only those that fit their policy proclivities. Not all hypotheses are equally sound, and some are rubbish. Policymakers should not be given a smorgasbord of competing hypotheses in which caviar and stones are mixed together. There must be professional judgments made as to which hypotheses should be discarded as inconsistent with the bulk of the evidence. This is not an error-free approach, but it is sounder than a Milton-like process that permits truth and error to compete freely in the marketplace. It would be helpful to tighten the language here a bit.

Finally, the language on addressing the critical shortage of human expertise is absolutely right but could be strengthened even further. We not only need more National Security Education Program funding, but we need more Americans studying abroad, becoming fluent in foreign languages, and gaining improved understanding of foreign cultures through experience abroad.

## Ensure More Effective Information Sharing

I think this is the weakest section of the paper. The point is valid that we need more effective information sharing, but the section does not address the roots of the problem, which can only be managed and not resolved. The problem is that different components of the government have different missions and priorities, which cause them to assign different levels of importance to protecting intelligence information. Law enforcement elements want to use intelligence to prosecute cases, even if this will compromise the source. The intelligence collectors, therefore, fundamentally mistrust the reliability of law enforcement elements in protecting the information. This makes them reluctant to share.

This is an inherent problem, which can be minimized (but not eliminated) through good management. Good management means that when there are contradictions between using intelligence and protecting it, the decisions are made by the proper people and not arbitrarily by undisciplined individuals. To conclude, as this section does, that sharing must be "required" does not show an understanding of the problem. Sharing should be optimized not mandated.

This section is generally sound. My one quibble is with the reference to establishing "absolute clarity of the chain of command." That amounts to striving for a perfect solution, which even if achievable would require so many rules and exceptions as to be excessively cumbersome. Clandestine Ops deal with a wide range of circumstances. These should not be subject to endless turf battles between defense and CIA. But the goal should be clarify, not absolute clarity, so there is some room for judgment.

Theresa Cimino

From: Jessee Incao [jincao@kmaglobal.com]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:48 PM
To: 'Theresa Cimino'
Subject: FW: Intel Reform Draft Principles

Principles_IntelRefo
rm_v2.doc ...

-----Original Message-----

From: Jason Keiber [mailto:JKeiber@csis.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 7:29 PM
To: Jason Keiber
Cc: Mary DeRosa
Subject: Intel Reform Draft Principles

Here is the latest version of the guiding principles for intelligence
reform. The document has been tightened up, and while the content
hasn't changed much from the initial draft, some substantive changes
were suggested by Secretary Cohen and Dr. Kissinger under the section,
"Separate Intelligence from Policy," and by Senator Boren in the
section, "Improve the Quality of Analysis." Senator Nunn suggested an
addition in the conclusion to address the overwhelming likelihood that
Congress will pass something before the election.

We will be in touch with your office on Friday to let you know about
next steps.

P: 202.775.3280
F: 202.775.3199
jkeiber@csis.org

DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT

September 16, 7:00 pm (EST)

America's security depends on strengthening our intelligence collection and analysis. Debate is under way on intelligence reform, and harnessing the energy of an election season is a healthy way to assure the issue receives the attention it deserves. But racing to implement reforms on an election timetable is precisely the wrong thing to do. Intelligence reform is too complex and too important to undertake at a campaign's breakneck speed. Based on our experience in both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government and on both sides of the political aisle, these are the basic principles we believe should guide any reform effort:

* Identify the Problems

Rushing in with solutions before we understand all the problems is a recipe for failure. Only after a full appreciation of the Intelligence Community's problems can sensible decisions be made about reform, including whether to restructure. Moreover, reform will have to be comprehensive to succeed. Addressing this or that shortcoming - however grave - in isolation will fail to produce the improvement in intelligence capabilities our nation's security demands.

* Strengthen the Intelligence Community's Leader

* Separate Intelligence from Policy

A fundamental principle for Intelligence Community reform must be that the intelligence community remains independent from policymakers. Nothing could be more important to a healthy national security structure. When intelligence and policy are too closely tied, the demands of policymakers can distort intelligence and intelligence analysts can hijack the policy development process. It is crucial to ensuring this separation that the Intelligence Community leader have no policy role. Otherwise, an Intelligence Community leader's voice could overwhelm those of Cabinet secretaries and the National Security Advisor and deprive the President of the benefit of robust, informed policy debate. A single individual with the last word on intelligence and a say in policy as well could be a dangerously powerful actor in the national security arena -- using intelligence to advocate for particular policy positions, budget requests, or weapons systems that others lacked the knowledge to challenge. For this reason, the leader of the Intelligence Community should not work inside the White House; he or she should be at arm's length from the policy process, not at the President's right hand. Similarly, Intelligence Community reform must not rob Cabinet secretaries of their own ability to assess intelligence by centralizing the bulk of assessment resources; the secretaries must be able to turn to their own analysts for independent perspective. Finally, to protect against an unhealthy mixing of functions, we believe the person who is chosen to lead the Intelligence Community should be broadly acceptable to both parties and chosen for his or her substantive or management expertise.

DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT

September 16, 7:00 pm (EST)

* Improve the Quality of Analysis

Intellectual conformity and failure of analytical imagination have been the major culprits in most intelligence breakdowns, from our failure to predict accurately the collapse of the Soviet Union and India and Pakistan's nuclear tests, to our misjudgment of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. Improving the quality of the analysis on which policy makers rely must therefore be a top reform priority. The best analysis emerges from a competitive environment where different perspectives are welcomed and alternative hypotheses are encouraged. Intelligence reform must institutionalize these traits in the analytical process. To preserve their independence, analysts must be insulated from policy and political pressure. Finally, we must not only concern ourselves with the appropriate structure of intelligence analysis, we must also address the critical shortage of human expertise in critical fields. Funding for programs to address this deficiency is dangerously low and the trust funds for the National Security Education Program will be fully depleted within the next two years unless Congress acts.

* Ensure More Effective Information-Sharing

Intelligence Community players have overwhelming cultural and bureaucratic incentives not to share their information with each other or with those outside the community. These include a natural impulse to hoard information to protect turf, and a deeply ingrained passion for secrecy. Domestic agencies and foreign agencies, in particular, traditionally have resisted sharing information with each other. Yet our nation has learned with painful clarity that failure to share, coordinate, and connect available intelligence can have devastating consequences. The next time an FBI special agent suspects an Arizona flight trainee is an al Qaeda terrorist, the Intelligence Community needs to know. Reform must fundamentally alter agency incentives and culture to require sharing - including by addressing the excessive emphasis on secrecy and classification that inhibits constructive, timely information flows.

* Protect Civil Liberties

DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT

September 16, 7:00 pm (EST)

DATE 9/17/04

CORR. FILE __________

ACTION: Alan Stape Dennis
(Jessee) Theresa John B.
Maggie Suzanne

SUBJ. FILE CSIS

CROSS REF. __________

STAFF MEMO __________

COMMENTS:

9/17 faxed to HAK inKenL

DC OFFICE:
Christie / Jody / Tiffany

INFO COPY TO:

ROUTE CC COPY TO:

TO BE FILED __________

DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT

September 16, 7:00 pm (EST)

* Identify the Problems

P.02

2027753132

Sep-16-04 05:25P CSIS

DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT

September 16, 7:00 pm (EST)

Intelligence Community players have overwhelming cultural and bureaucratic incentives not to share their information with each other or with those outside the community. These include a natural impulse to hoard information to protect turf, and a deeply ingrained passion for secrecy. Domestic agencies and foreign agencies, in particular, traditionally have resisted sharing information with each other. Yet our nation has learned with painful clarity that failure to share, coordinate, and connect available intelligence can have devastating consequences. The next time an FBI special agent suspects an Arizona flight trainee is an al Qaeda terrorist, the Intelligence Community needs to know. Reform must fundamentally alter agency incentives and culture to require sharing -- including by addressing the excessive emphasis on secrecy and classification that inhibits constructive, timely information flows.

* Protect Civil Liberties

DRAFT *** DRAFT *** DRAFT

September 16, 7:00 pm (EST)

[Y]

Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for inviting me to appear before this Committee. Few issues facing the country match the importance of the reform of the intelligence community that you are considering. The proposals that give the impetus for this effort were put forward by the 9/11 Commission in a thoughtful, unanimous report. This Commission deserves the nation's gratitude for the meticulous manner by which it has assembled the facts of that tragedy and the thoughtful recommendations it has made. The majority of these proposals have either been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.

But the drastic restructuring of the intelligence community that is being proposed transcends the lessons of a single episode, however traumatic. It goes to the heart of the national security structure of the United States across a spectrum far exceeding the events of 9/11. It will basically alter the methods for dealing with the issue of terrorism but, equally important, will modify the way judgments about the nature of the political and economic forces that will shape the world over the next decades are reached.

Most major policy decisions involve judgments about consequences and about facts. Intelligence supplies the indispensable raw material from which these judgments are distilled. Any reform must start with examining whether its objectives can best be achieved by improving and modifying existing institutions or whether a substantial restructuring is needed.

The 9/11 proposals amount to a radical restructuring. To undertake such a step in the midst of a war is a major decision requiring the most careful consideration. Changes of the scope now being discussed will bring with them a long period – perhaps years – of turmoil throughout the intelligence community. Care must be taken lest a too hasty reorganization create vulnerabilities greater than those trying to be solved. Thoughtfulness is more important than speed. This is especially the case when decisions are accelerated during an election campaign.

A pause for reflection appears all the more desirable when one examines the issues awaiting resolution:

2

YJ

(a) The Role of the Proposed National Director of Intelligence

The decision to create another layer between the President and
the existing institutions raises the following problems:

-- If the director is to be the principal intelligence adviser to the President, a new bureaucracy would have to be created to redirect the flow of intelligence throughout the government and sift the intelligence input from the various components of the intelligence community. Where would the personnel for such a structure come from? Does it mean dismantling existing institutions, and which ones? Could the national intelligence director function without having the analytic branch of the CIA placed under his or her direction? If the CIA were reorganized in this manner, would it then shrink into an organization for conducting clandestine activities? If the essential relationship between analysts and operators is weakened, does the operational branch become rudderless and the analytical branch too academic?

-- Is the new director to be in control of domestic intelligence? If so, is this compatible with the checks and balances most other advanced democracies have found preferable? Creating an intelligence czar with domestic surveillance authority that is not under the Attorney General, and measures that separate domestic intelligence from law enforcement, go against all the lessons that democratic governments have learned the hard way.

-- How will competing views on intelligence be brought to the
President's attention? Indeed, how will competing views emerge in so
centralized a structure?

-- Does a national intelligence director with such powers weaken
the NSC process and the roles of the national security adviser and
secretary of state?

-- How is the tactical and operational military intelligence linked to the new structure being envisaged? The proposal to have the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence act at the same time as Deputy Director of Intelligence could weaken the authority of both principals.

3

Y

-- Could some of the objectives sought by reorganization be achieved by strengthening the existing institutions, especially the position of the DCI?

(b) Separating Intelligence from Policy

This problem has two seemingly contradictory aspects. On the one hand, the analytical function needs to be distanced from the preferences of policymakers so that analytical conclusions, to the maximum extent possible, are based on the evidence and not on the policy preferences of particular policymakers. At the same time, care must be taken lest analysts push their own preferences under the guise of "objective" facts.

Collection, on the other hand, should reflect policy priorities, and covert action should be under the close control and scrutiny of policymakers. Excessive centralization may defeat both objectives. The intelligence chief should not have a policy role or a formal position as a member of policy bodies. But the control of clandestine operations requires a control that transcends the intelligence community and assures that policy and legal considerations are fully taken into account.

(c) Improving the Quality of Analysis

This is the central challenge to reform. As the Senate Intelligence Report has pointed out, group think is a major danger. However, intellectual conformity and failure of analytical imagination are not the only sources of intelligence breakdowns. A major contributing factor is the inadequacy of the information base. This reflects shortcomings in trained personnel, the vagaries over decades of alternating emphasis and assaults on human intelligence, and also excessive compartmentalization. Since intelligence thrives on gaining access to secret information that is rigorously guarded by its possessors, and collection is not always successful in overcoming these obstacles, intelligence analysts are frequently forced to make analytical judgments with key pieces of information unavailable. Strengthening collection by improving human intelligence is one way of addressing this problem, but it can never solve the conundrum in a fully satisfactory way. What one should expect is that collection

[Y]

inadequacies are addressed properly, that analytical judgments are
professional, and that available information is properly coordinated.

Encouraging different perspectives and alternative hypotheses is
desirable. Yet not all hypotheses are equally sound, and some are
rubbish. There is therefore need for a mechanism to both generate
options and to establish criteria for choosing between them lest
policymakers cherry-pick among competing hypotheses and select only
those that fit their policy proclivities. There must be a systematic
ability to make professional judgments as to which hypotheses should
be discarded as inconsistent with the bulk of the evidence.

Finally, the critical shortage of human expertise must be
addressed. We not only need more National Security Education
Program funding, but we need more Americans studying abroad,
becoming fluent in foreign languages and gaining improved
understanding of foreign cultures through such an experience.

(d) <u>Information-Sharing</u>

Different components of the government have different missions
and priorities that cause them to assign different levels of importance
to protecting intelligence information. Law enforcement elements
want to use intelligence to prosecute cases even if this will
compromise the source. The intelligence collectors fundamentally
mistrust the reliability of law enforcement elements in protecting the
information, making them reluctant to share it. This is an inherent
problem that can be minimized (but not eliminated) through good
management. Good management requires that, when there are
contradictions between using intelligence and protecting it, the
decisions are made by an established procedure. Sharing should be
optimized, not mandated in detail. To attempt to prescribe all the
circumstances in bureaucratic or legalistic language would involve so
much detail and so many exceptions as to defeat its own purpose.

Conclusion

The magnitude of the tasks outlined here suggests that Congress
leave itself an opportunity to return to the issue early next year to
permit a comprehensive approach.

5

[x]

I confess that my bias is toward coordination rather than centralization. The proposals for reform draw on the experience in building the current DOD organization. The DNI becomes the DOD, and the existing institutions for intelligence turn into the military services. But there is an important difference in the missions. Defense must build toward unified action; intelligence should serve coherence in analysis that aids the decision-making ability of senior policymakers.

But for present purposes, this is not the key point. I am not here to offer answers to the issues I raised. My recommendation to this Committee is therefore to adopt a procedure that permits a careful examination of the issues involved, drawing on the experience of men and women who have held key positions in the field of national security, many of whom are uneasy about the pace in which restructuring of the country's intelligence is being pursued. Perhaps the task could be assigned to the distinguished commission dealing with the issue of weapons of mass destruction, which is scheduled to report in March 2005.

1446 WORDS

Revised
FINAL

Statement Before Senate Appropriations Committee

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Henry A. Kissinger

2

[y]

3

requiring the most careful consideration. Changes of the scope now
being discussed will bring with them a long period - perhaps years - of
turmoil throughout the intelligence community. Care must be taken
lest a too hasty reorganization create vulnerabilities greater than those
trying to be solved. Thoughtfulness is more important than speed.
This is especially the case when decisions are accelerated during an
election campaign.

(a) <u>The Role of the Proposed National Director of Intelligence</u>

4

[Y]

5

[Y]

[Y]

6

7

contributing factor is the inadequacy of the information base. This

8

M

Strengthening collection by improving human intelligence is one way
of addressing this problem, but it can never solve the conundrum in a
fully satisfactory way. What one should expect is that collection
inadequacies are addressed properly, that analytical judgments are
professional, and that available information is properly coordinated.

9

[Y]

10

[Y]

## Conclusion

11

12

1457 WORDS

FINAL

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Henry A. Kissinger

3

M

4

5

M

6

[Y]

8

9

[Y]

those that fit their policy proclivities. There must be a systematic
ability to make professional judgments as to which hypotheses should
be discarded as inconsistent with the bulk of the evidence. Excessive
centralization may distort the competition necessary for such a
process.

10

want to use intelligence to prosecute cases even if this will
compromise the source. The intelligence collectors fundamentally
mistrust the reliability of law enforcement elements in protecting the
information, making them reluctant to share it. This is an inherent
problem that can be minimized (but not eliminated) through good
management. Good management requires that, when there are
contradictions between using intelligence and protecting it, the
decisions are made by an established procedure. Sharing should be
optimized, not mandated in detail. To attempt to prescribe all the
circumstances in bureaucratic or legalistic language would involve so
much detail and so many exceptions as to defeat its own purpose.

Conclusion

12

1146 words

9/18/04

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

Henry A. Kissinger

Thank you for inviting me to appear before this Committee. Few issues before the country match the importance of the reform of the intelligence community which you are considering. The proposals which give the impetus for this effort were put forward by the 9/11 Commission in a thoughtful, unanimous report. The 9/11 Commission, whose Chair and Vice Chair are friends of long standing, deserve the gratitude of the nation for the meticulous manner [in which] it has assembled the facts of that tragedy and the thoughtful recommendations it has made. The majority of these have either been implemented or are in the process of being implemented.

But the drastic restructuring of the intelligence community which is being proposed goes beyond the lessons of a single episode however

["Thank you for your time to attend the Committee meeting.\n\nThe Committee is pleased to welcome Henry A. Kleibau, who has been a member of the Committee for 21 years. His retirement was marked by the 21st Committee meeting. Mr. Kleibau has been a member of the Committee since its formation in 1961. He has served on the Committee's staff and on its committees. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Education, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology, the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology and the Committee on Governmental Research and Technology. He has been a member of the staff of the Committee on Governmental Relations, the Committee on Governmental Operations, the Committee on Governmental Research, the Committee on Governmental Research

traumatic. It goes to the heart of the national security policy of the
United States across a spectrum far transcending the events of 9/11
and going beyond even the issue of terrorism to judgments about the
nature of the political and economic forces that will shape the next
decades.

Most major policy decisions involve judgments about
consequences and about facts. Intelligence supplies the indispensable
raw material from which these judgments are distilled. Any reform
must start with examining whether its objectives can best be achieved
by improving and modifying institutions or whether a substantial
dismantling is needed.

The 9/11 proposals go far in the direction of radical
restructuring. To undertake such a step in the midst of a war is a
major decision requiring the most careful consideration. Changes of
the scope now being discussed will bring with them a long period -

perhaps years - of adjustments throughout the Executive branch.

Care must be taken lest a too hasty reorganization create greater vulnerabilities than it is trying to solve. Thoughtfulness is more important than speed. This is especially the case when decisions are accelerated during an election campaign. That is not a criticism to which the reform should run the risk of being subjected in the aftermath of legislation. My basic recommendation to this Committee is therefore to adopt a procedure that permits a careful examination of the issues involved, drawing on the experience of [the] distinguished men and women [who] have held key positions in the field of national security, with a short deadline, say six months. Or else the task could be assigned to the distinguished commission dealing with the issue of weapons of mass destruction, which is scheduled to report in March 2005.

["The executive branch is responsible for carrying out the policies and laws passed by the legislative branch. Executive branch officials are the highest officials in the government and hold office for life. They are elected by general election and serve a term of four years. The executive branch includes the President, Vice President, and the Secretary of State. The President is the head of state and is elected by popular vote. The Vice President is the second in line and acts as the President's representative in case of the President's death, disability, or removal from office. The Secretary of State is the head of the Department of State and is responsible for foreign affairs. The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for the country's money and economics. The Secretary of Defense is responsible for the country's military and for maintaining national defense. The Attorney General is the highest attorney in the country and is responsible for the administration of the law. The Chief Justice is the highest judicial officer in the country and is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and laws passed by the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and has the final say on all matters. The courts of appeal are the highest courts of law in the country and are responsible for hearing cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance. The courts of first instance are the lowest courts of law in the country and are responsible for hearing cases that can be heard by them. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that hear cases for the first time and decide them on the spot. The courts of review are courts that review decisions made by lower courts and make them final. The courts of last resort are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them on the spot. The courts of appeal are courts that hear cases that cannot be heard by the courts of first instance and decide them

If that just creates another layer between the President and the
existing institutions, the following problems arise:

Where would the personnel for such a structure come from? Does it
mean dismantling existing institutions, and which ones? Could the
national intelligence director function without having the analytic
branch of the CIA placed under his or her direction? If the CIA were
gutted in this manner, what would become of the remnant?

5

[Y]

-- How will so powerful a director affect the NSC process, and how will competing views be brought to the President's attention?

(b) <u>Separat[ing] Intelligence from Policy</u>

6

policy preferences of particular policymakers. Collection, on the other
hand, should reflect policy priorities, and covert action should be under
the close control and scrutiny of policymakers. Excessive
centralization may defeat both objectives. The intelligence chief
should not have a policy role or a formal position as a member of
policy bodies. But the control of clandestine operations requires a
control that transcends the intelligence community.

(c) <u>Improving</u> the Quality of Analysis

I consider this the central element of reform. As recent events
have shown, group think is a major danger that can afflict the
intelligence community. However, intellectual conformity and failure
of analytical imagination are not the only sources of intelligence
breakdowns. A major contributing factor is the inadequacy of the
information base, an inherent problem in the intelligence function,
since it deals with types of information that are rigorously guarded by

["The policy and no indication of accounting for\nrevenue and directly notice of the customer's\naccounting policy, unless otherwise stated,\nis not in accordance with the accounting\nprinciples and standards of accounting.\n\nThe above statement is true and correct in\nthe case of a customer and authority to issue\nan invoice and collect the amount due\nthereon, and the customer's right to receive\nan invoice and

the possessors of the information. As a result, intelligence analysts
are all too frequently forced to make analytical judgments with key
pieces of information missing. Strengthening collection is one way of
addressing this problem, but it can never solve the conundrum in a
fully satisfactory way. What one should expect is that collection
inadequacies are addressed properly, and that analytical judgments
are professionally sound and not distorted by poor coordination of the
available information.

Encouraging different perspectives and alternative hypotheses is
desirable, but this also poses risks. Policymakers should not cherry-
pick among competing hypotheses and select only those that fit their
policy proclivities. Not all hypotheses are equally sound, and some are
rubbish. There must be professional judgments as to which
hypotheses should be discarded as inconsistent with the bulk of the
evidence.

["Theory and practice are two different things. A man who does not understand theory is as blind as a bat when it comes to flying a helicopter. A man who does not understand practice is as blind as a bat when it comes to flying a helicopter. Theory is what you know and can understand. Practice is what you have to do. In both cases, you need to be able to see and understand what is going on around you. You need to be able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of knowing what is going to happen and being able to act on it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of knowing what is going to happen and being able to act on it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making. Decision-making is the art of making good decisions. It is the art of knowing what to do and when to do it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. It is the art of being able to act on what you see and understand it. This is called decision-making.

8

Finally, the critical shortage of human expertise must be
addressed. We not only need more National Security Education
Program funding, but we need more Americans studying abroad,
becoming fluent in foreign languages and gaining improved
understanding of foreign cultures through experience abroad.

(d) <u>The Problem of Information Sharing</u>

The problem is that different components of the government
have different missions and priorities which cause them to assign
different levels of importance to protecting intelligence information.
Law enforcement elements want to use intelligence to prosecute cases,
even if this will compromise the source. The intelligence collectors,
therefore, fundamentally mistrust the reliability of law enforcement
elements in protecting the information. This makes them reluctant to
share. This is an inherent problem which can be minimized (but not
eliminated) through good management. Good management means

Sharing should be optimized, not mandated.

## Conclusion

The magnitude of the tasks outlined here suggests that Congress
leave itself the scope of the issue to early next year to permit a
comprehensive approach.

bis compilati, onici raccolte archivio-pneumatici e analoghe, che nonché, di
ciascuna dotazione, nonché di ogni tipologia di机械的装置和
..bisturi elettriche ed elettroniche ed elettrische elettroniche.

Conclusione

conclusione: basta riprodotto e benedito ed adottato in every country

a filmato of every kind of aircraft and to be used in any country.

...conclusione avvisatoria...