Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
There was no vetting of information prior to 9/11, that was the problem, information never escaped from these agencies to be combined into a entire threat analysis.
Thats the problem, thats why we've seen an attempt to reform the CIA by placing military leadership there.
The NSA for example isn't going to care at all about aircraft parts and papers, they're going to care about signal intelligence, so in terms of the investigation, they were intercepting all kinds of communication intel between Al Queda elements before and after 9/11 occured.
They won't process anything but signals, just like NGIA wouldn't really have a roll in the investigation at all unless a Satellite shows some image of Bin Laden holding up a sign that said I did it.
Would DIA care, sure, but they would be suborned to the FBI in this care because one of the big FBI mandates involves terrorist attacks in America, and they hold jurisdiction on that.
But I've never disagreed with what your saying about the sharing of information, but I'm not sure I understand how it waters down to the FBI doing the initial onsite investigation?
|
CC, until you work in the USIC and determine just what kind of collected intelligence an agency analyzes, your guess is no better than mine. For the record, the NGA (not NGIA, i apologize) collects GEOINT, which includes imagery, mapping and other techniques on stationary and moving data. There is little doubt the NGA investigated the pattern of the airliner that hit the Pentagon, its elevations, its path, its relation to other objects, and so on. As for the NSA, evidence collected by the FBI directly pertains to them - they have even declared that all foreign intelligence activities to be collected within the borders of the USA will be collected by the FBI, which heightens their linkages together. See the US' Executive Order 12333.