Ex-FBI Chief slates MI5

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by AndyPipkin, Apr 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I would expect nothing less from an Irish American policeman.

    Does He actually have any experience of MI5 in Northern Ireland or is He making it all up. :roll:
  2. Alls fair in love and politics... the FBI does not want another organization stepping on it's "turf" so they are attempting to sway public opinion and Freeh is in a convenient position to deny collusion with the agency's senior staff. Bad mouthing MI5 apparently is the chosen tactic... guess it was felt that the reprecussions would be minimal.

    Simple fact is that the line between terrorism and vanilla criminal activity is blurred at best. Narcotics are trafficked and banks are robbed to produce funding for many militant organizations yet we have zero real sharing of data or even a glimmer of cooperation between state/federal law enforcement and the military.

    Case in point, when the subject of narcoterrorist conducting cross-border infiltration from Mexico comes up, the US Army says it's a law enforcement issue and the LE community says they lack the men and firepower to do anything about it. Pretty sad... seems to me that armed contingents violating the borders falls under the title of national defence which need not invoke posse comititus but hey... I'm just an old grunt who reads alot.
  3. So maybe since the yanks were financing PIRA and the fact we didnt tell them anything, may drop a hint 8O
  4. This look like an ex-FBI man merely casting about for wild, unsubstantiated examples to try and oppose the possible setting-up of a US internal agency which might detract from the FBI's coveted, jealously-guarded status.

    If MI5 is indeed "secret and non-transparent", I - as a UK taxpayer - applaud that. Spooks are meant to be secretive. They are perfectly transparent to those who need to know of their work - which doesn't always include the FBI.

    Where was Freeth and the FBI when Noraid was feeding funds and guns to PIRA - and, by their example, stoking the fires of the US's current internal fears? If indeed he had "shouting matches" with Clinton over prosecuting PIRA supporters, he could have shouted a hell of a lot louder.

    He also appears to have no loyalty towards a UK agency with which he formerly worked. That will scarcely enhance current MI5-FBI relations.

    Not an impressive statement, nor an impressive man. He should go back into retirement.
  5. Hold it one second. If you read the article, Louis Freeh is said to have had stand up rows with a united states president to try and get PIRA gun runners prosecuted. Not the actions of an out and out fenian. His arguments against an MI5 equivalent are to protect the interests of the FBI and the American people.
  6. I hardly think the the Federal Bureau of Incompetence is in any place to criticise any British agency.
  7. That's true. However you'll notice they aren't. An EX-FBI guy is.
  8. I have.

    And it seems he did stand up to Clinton. I suggested he should have done it much louder.

    He's very unlikely to be protecting the US people. More likely, he's trying to avoid any diminution in the perceived status of the FBI if an MI5-like rival or parallel agency is created.

    That makes his comments a tendentious piece of turf-warring, to try and retain high status for his old FBI buddies.

    He may be correct in his opposition to a new agency - I don't know enough about internal US security to comment - but it seems unnecessary to go about pitching for the FBI by shitting on the domestic intelligence agency of the US's closest ally. And without substantiating his allegations.
  9. Perhaps the most interesting angle of this story is the fact that the President of the United States was actually arguing against the prosecution of the PIRA gun runners. Special relationship yeah right.
  10. Clinton shamelessly used the Irish issue to pander to Irish -American urban voters. The FBI's reputation has taken a pasting in the last few years (Robert hanssen, Sept. 11th) and the Bureau knows that another c0ck-up like Sept. 11th and they will be replaced by a MI-5 like agency.
  11. Which is why this ex- FBI chief - "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" - is pitching for the FBI, and against any new, threatening agency.

    MI5's merits or alleged faults have nothing to do with it.
  12. Which is why this ex- FBI chief - "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" - is pitching for the FBI, and against any new, threatening agency.

    MI5's merits or alleged faults have nothing whatever to do with his domestic agenda.
  13. "...the spying agency's operations in the province had been characterised by decades of "secrecy and non-transparency"..."

    Isn't that the whole idea?
  14. I'm in agreement with Khyros et al, who describe this in the context of a bureaucratic battle. At the end of the day, the FBI are cops, not spooks, and they generally like it that way. Counterintelligence is only a very small part of what they do and, until very recently, it hasn't been considered a very glamourous or sought-after speciality within the FBI. However, they're in a bit of a pickle now, because any bureaucracy will fight tooth and nail to protect itself against the intrusion of other agencies on what they perceive to believe to be "their" turf.

    As cops, they get their jollies by making arrests and banging-up the bad guys. The wait and see orientation of Int types, plus very practical problems regarding protection of sources and methods vs admissible evidence and testimony is a big problem with which the US Intelligence Community has always struggled.