House Intelligence Committee will see changes, says new chairman

GOP Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan was named chairman the U.S. House intelligence committee beginning on January 5, when the U.S. Congress reconvenes. Many within the law enforcement community see Rogers' appointment as promising since he possesses an extensive law enforcement background.

---

"It will be an incredible responsibility to serve as chairman as we work to get the oversight, policy and funding right to provide our nation's intelligence professionals with the tools and support they need," Rogers said in a press statement. Rogers said his priorities will include making certain the provisions of the Patriot Act, set to expire in February, are extended and properly applied. "The committee in the last couple of years hasn't functioned very well and that does a disservice to the intelligence community," Rogers said on New Years Day on Fox News Channel's morning show Fox & Friends. Rep. Mike Rogers, a decorated FBI agent, has often criticized the Obama administration's interrogation policies for terror suspects as being too restrictive. In addition to Rogers, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-OK) last week was selected to serve on the House Intelligence Committee by Speaker-designate Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio). Bachmann is supported by several Tea Party groups as well as conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and, her friend, Sarah Palin. All agencies that undertake intelligence collection, whether through human or technical means, must be constantly on guard that what they are collecting is genuine. This requires continuous evaluation of their sources as well as the information gathered from them. Intelligence analysts who are familiar with the totality of information on a particular topic are often in a position to detect anomalies. Historically, intelligence agencies have not performed this crucial function very well, according to several experts. Virtually all have suffered severe losses due to a failure to recognize anomalous behavior on the part of their own employees. Some have also had problems recognizing anomalies in the behavior of their sources or in the appearance or actions of their targets. The Aldrich Ames spy case revealed serious shortcomings in both categories. In the wake of the Ames case, the Intelligence Community made sweeping changes to its counterintelligence infrastructure. A new policy board, reporting was established to coordinate counterintelligence activities and resolve interagency disagreements, and a "national counterintelligence center" was created to share and evaluate information regarding foreign intelligence threats. In addition, the CIA made numerous improvements to its counterintelligence and security posture. Perhaps more than any other function of intelligence, counterintelligence has undergone the most significant change over the last two years. The question is whether these changes will have a long-term positive or negative effect. Because counterintelligence is so crucial to the success of the entire enterprise, the Intelligence Community must sustain the renewed emphasis recently placed on this function. Counterintelligence must be viewed not as an annoying intrusion but rather as an integral part of the intelligence process. It must focus not only on protecting our own sensitive information, but equally on efforts to manipulate our collection and analysis, through double agents or other means. This requires a certain openness of mind and a willingness continually to balance the conclusions drawn from intelligence with the possibility of deliberate deception by a target.