Volume CXXXIII, Number 6 October 19, 2001 f

Implications of Intelligence Gathering
TODD JOHNSTON
STAFF WRITER

One month to the day after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, Admiral Michael Ratliffe, USN (ret.) spoke on naval intelligence and its future role in the fight against terrorism. His talk was entitled "What is Victory in Our War Against Terrorism?" As former Director of Naval Intelligence and current Vice President for Programs at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Admiral Ratliffe touched upon the importance of human intelligence operations in the battle against terrorism.

After Admiral Ratliffe's talk, I asked him specifically about human intelligence in light of information that the U.S. recently learned of possible future attacks within the next few days. Ratliffe spoke about the lack of human intelligence operations that we currently have in the United States and the growing need, especially now, to broaden the base of intelligence that agencies have at their disposal.

He stated that many Americans unrealistically want "the end to be as good as the means" in which the U.S. to have a strong national security, without having to use classic intelligence techniques from cold war days such as spying. Questions have arisen concerning how to better obtain intelligence through espionage and wiretapping, along with concerns that civil liberties may be violated and go unnoticed in the process of acquiring such information.

According to an article entitled "Testing intelligence" in the October 6, 2001 issue of the Economist, "the Justice Department … turned down an FBI request to put a wiretap on one suspected hijacker. Congress is likely to loosen rules like this which hamper domestic intelligence-gathering." And in terms of more spies, "until recently, the CIA had neglected its networks in the Middle East. The agency now has fewer Arabic-speaking case officers than in the cold war…" As the article goes on to say "after the (East African) embassy bombings in 1998, a National Commission on Terrorism proposed many changes - for instance, more spies on the ground, looser wiretap authority - that are now being discussed."

But how far should intelligence-gathering be able to go without violating people's liberties? After all as mentioned before, Congress will likely loosen rules for attaining a wiretap. Will that mean innocent people are wiretapped? It's very possible. Law enforcement officials at the beginning of the September 11 terrorism investigation detained many Arabs and Muslims suspecting they too could be involved in a terrorist plot. Some were later arrested, but others were detained for no obvious reason other than shared ethnic similarities with the suspected hijackers.

Whatever the verdict may be, there is certainly a fine line between intelligence-gathering and infringement on people's personal rights. As Admiral Ratliffe reminded the Bowdoin community, the means is not always as good as the end. But as the investigation and search continues for suspected terrorists in the U.S., Afghanistan, and beyond, many Americans are probably willing to give up some of their liberties to avoid another day like September 11.