The FBI and National Security

Second Quarter 2002

An Interview with James D. Ohlson

Mr. Ohlson joined the Center for Public Justice as its executive vice president after a career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a Special Agent, specializing in counterintelligence and counterterrorism. We talked with him recently about changes that have been taking place in the FBI since September 11. —Ed. [Pictured below: CPJ President Jim Skillen, left, and Executive Vice President Jim Ohlson.]

Q. Explain the changes you see taking place, Jim.

A. There have been two very open changes. In the days immediately following 9/11, the FBI put virtually all of its special agents and employees to work covering leads related to the attack. As things have settled down, the FBI now has nearly 25 percent of its total work force permanently detailed to 9/11-related investigations. It will probably continue like that for quite some time.

The other visible change is the reorganization of FBI headquarters by its new director, Robert Mueller. Mr. Mueller took the director's position on September 4, just one week before the attacks. So his tenure at the FBI will be judged by the FBI's response to 9/11, much as President Bush's administration will be judged by its response to those events. Director Mueller replaced the single deputy director position with four senior executive positions, all of which report to him directly. Consequently, he now has the chief of counterterrorism and counterintelligence reporting directly to him. This is a strong signal that he will be totally engaged in overseeing all of the FBI's investigative efforts.

Q. What about "closed" changes at the bureau that we don't know about?

A. I am no longer privy to what goes on inside headquarters, but some changes in strategy are apparent from overt activities. The most evident is in the detention of 600 suspected terrorists. In the past, the FBI always relied on good intelligence obtained from within groups suspected of conspiring to harm the U.S. or to commit a criminal act. To obtain good intelligence of that kind required patient, often long-term investigation in order to build cases against the major figures. That was not accomplished by quick arrests of minor criminal offenders. When you detain suspects, you risk losing some of the intelligence that can be obtained only in a long-term, patient way.

Obviously, since 9/11 we clearly want to prevent terrorist acts, but the FBI also needs to obtain intelligence related to future operations. The new approach is more like trying to arrest every drug user instead of developing the intelligence to go after the suppliers. On the one hand, if you arrest enough users, the suppliers will go out of business. But that rarely happens. The most effective strategies historically have been those that identify and undermine the infrastructure that supports the whole enterprise. And the key to accomplishing this is intelligence.

The challenge the FBI now faces is extraordinary. When you're dealing with terrorists motivated enough even to commit suicide in order to fulfill their mission, the FBI has to identify and counter plans at the base-in the deepest infrastructure. Detaining suspects may reduce some of the means by which they can carry out their attacks, but it won't destroy basic capabilities.

The protection of U.S. citizens is the primary reason the FBI exists, so ultimately all of its actions have to be judged in terms of meeting that goal. Taking known suspects off the streets in times like these will help to protect people, but if most of the FBI's energy goes in that direction, it may reduce the FBI's long-term ability to penetrate and counter the total infrastructure of terrorism.

Q. Go back a little further for us. Explain the significance of these changes in a longer term perspective.

A. In 1984 and 1986, Congress passed extra-territorial or "long-arm" statutes to enable the U. S. Government to charge persons who attack U.S. interests overseas with criminal violations. Those persons can then be returned to the U.S. for trial. In the early 1980s, for example, it was an FBI forensics team that conducted a crime-scene investigation of the bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. In the 1990s, the FBI conducted investigations with sizable contingents in East Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, and Germany, to name just a few of the "big" crime scenes. This international presence of the FBI became fully developed under Director Louis Freeh from 1993-2001. In many ways, the FBI thus became an instrument of U.S. foreign policy. The fact that it now almost routinely investigates and aids in the arrest of individuals in overseas locations is the biggest change in the FBI since I started as a special agent in 1972. This trend will almost certainly continue.

Q. How does the FBI counter acts of terrorism and can we be confident that it is up to the new challenges?

A. The key to countering or preventing terrorism is intelligence. Intelligence is developed by talking to people, listening to people, and watching people. This will lead to sources of information inside groups as well as from smart observers on the outside. Many of the terrorist groups have cultural roots in the societies from which they come. Consequently, there is a huge reservoir of data available to be analyzed and studied. Al Qaeda, however, is an extremely tight-knit group that planned its operations in great secrecy, involving as few people as necessary. Moreover, its members had suicidal devotion to their cause. Developing intelligence on that kind of group is very difficult. But as we can see from the several special alerts issued by the FBI in past months, the FBI is working closely with other intelligence agencies around the globe to develop intelligence concerning future actions by Al Qaeda. I am confident that the FBI is up to the task, but we must recognize that it is facing a truly extraordinary challenge.

Q. Given the FBI's increased focus on terrorism today, are there crimes that will be missed and perhaps not even investigated?

A. The situation today is not unique. There have always been times in the past when the FBI's resources were redirected towards a major investigation. The question is always the length of time that such a redirection of resources should be continued. The FBI has a system to assign priority to certain kinds of crimes. The high-priority crimes will always be investigated. Investigations of lower-level crimes may be delayed but they will not be forgotten. The FBI can easily deal with a diversion of resources for the short term (less than four or five months). When the diversion begins to take on a life of its own, then the FBI must seek additional appropriations. Approval has already been given for the hiring of 900 new special agents.

Q. Will the FBI succeed?

A. Let's pray that it will. I have mentioned the challenge of developing intelligence in the current situation. The FBI faces a real challenge in the detention of suspected terrorists because that may thwart the gathering of desperately needed information. At the same time, however, the government can at least be sure that those detained will not be able to participate in future terrorists acts. The difficulty is that detention cannot go on indefinitely.

It may surprise you to hear me say this, but the greatest resource for any investigation is ordinary citizens. Citizens who observe and report crimes and suspicious activities have always played a key role in the investigative process. Since 9/11, U.S. citizens may be even more alert to suspicious activity and that can only help. Citizen awareness and alertness multiplies the strength of the FBI extraordinarily. FBI special agents are instilled with core values that guide their investigative steps. These values include: rigorous obedience to the U.S. Constitution; respect for the dignity of everyone they protect; compassion; fairness; and uncompromising personal and institutional integrity. The cases of dereliction of duty, even to the point of treason, as in the case of Robert Hanssen, are very rare in the FBI. I am confident that the FBI has outstanding people working to protect our country, and I believe that they will carry out their work with utmost respect for those they protect.

Q. Tell us a little about the Hanssen case. The uncovering of treasonous activity in the FBI must be deeply disturbing to you and to others. Does it undermine morale? Does it make everyone suspicious of their colleagues?

A. Bob Hanssen has pleaded guilty to espionage against the United States. I find it exceedingly disturbing because I considered Hanssen a friend for over twenty years. The FBI, as an organization, finds it disturbing as well (even when not everyone in the bureau knew him personally) because he violated the basic element of trust that is integral to the working relationships among FBI special agents. The working atmosphere in the FBI requires total trust of one another, from helping to cover a simple lead to providing back-up in dangerous situations involving use of force where lives are at risk. So, when one of the FBI's own commits treason, it shakes the morale of everyone. Nevertheless, such cases within the FBI are very rare and have always been brought to light by the FBI itself. FBI employees undergo extensive background checks that are continuously updated so that the FBI can maintain a trusted workforce. As bad as the Hanssen case is, it will not destroy the fabric of that workforce, because his actions are truly aberrant and inconsistent with the high value that all FBI employees place on trust.