Do We Need an FBI?

The news about the FBI’s having dropped the ball on the shooter in the Parkland massacre is one more bit of evidence that has emerged, not just recently but over the period of the last 20 years which, when considered in aggregate, suggest that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has organizational problems. Have we reached a point at which the FBI is chronically unable to execute its mission?

I don’t mean an end to federal law enforcement ability. Every federal agency now has its own enforcement wings. For goodness sake, there are presently at least 271 distinct tactical response (SWAT) teams in the federal government and most of them don’t fall under the FBI. Their use has doubled over the period of the last 15 years. The National Institutes of Health has a SWAT team.

So, here are my questions. Do we need an FBI? Is the FBI really dropping the ball a lot or does it just look that way because those are stories that receive attention? Should there be distinct armed enforcement arms for every government agency? Does the FBI need a change in focus?

14 comments… add one
  • Jimbino Link

    Couldn’t we just get rid of the FBI and hire the Russians, who’ve proven much better at investigation, obstruction, and burning out dissidents?

  • Modulo Myself Link

    It’s completely unclear how many tips the FBI gets about possible shooters with creepy and violent internet profiles. It’s also unclear what they could have done in an investigation. Owning guns and stockpiling ammo is legal, after all. Unstable people who happen to be Muslim are set up in huge sting operations. Should they start doing that for every tip they get? Troll racists on the internet into conspiring to commit terroristic acts? Or should they have put him under 24/7 surveillance?

  • If it were just this one instance it would be one thing but the FBI has clearly been dropping the ball a lot lately. The indictments on Russia brought this last week were for activities that should have been detected and stopped years ago by the FBI—they’re the responsible agency. They’ve spent billions on modernizing their IT systems without much to show for it.

    The FBI also dropped the ball on 9/11.

  • My remarks might be construed as complete opposition to the FBI. Not at all. I’m asking questions to which I do not know the answers. I do think that the FBI is showing signs of being a late stage bureaucracy, in which its only real missions are institutional survival and expansion.

    But I’m open to the idea that the FBI plays a vital role that only it can satisfy. I’d just like to see the argument articulated and supported with evidence.

  • Gray Shambler Link

    As I recall about 9/11, the CIA has the hijackers in their sights until they arrived on American soil. The CIA had been hauled in front of congress for spying on American citizens overseas, and told they were out of bounds. When the 20 hijackers arrived here the CIA said that’s the FBI’s problem now, and because of inter agency rivalry did not share info with FBI that may have prevented the attacks. Of course that’s hindsight because the CIA din’t know the objective of the 20 Saudis, only that they were watching them for suspicious activity in Germany.

    So what did Bush do? Added another layer of bureaucracy with Homeland Security..

    Should an agency be eliminated? Has it ever been done? Can it be done?

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    My response is with another question; is the FBI being especially more dysfunctional compare with the rest of the Federal government? Compared to Congress, to the IT shops responsible for health exchanges, to the IRS?

  • Andy Link

    Like a lot of federal agencies (and the federal government writ large), the FBI is overdue for some serious reform.

    I think we do need an FBI. They have jurisdiction over important parts of law enforcement that other agencies don’t have. Plus, one of its big responsibilities is counterintelligence.

  • steve Link

    Did they really drop the ball, or just act within the legal constraints we place upon them? It is very difficult to predict who will become violent. My guess is that we probably have thousands of people every year who fit the profile of that school shooter. The huge majority don’t go on to shoot people. So, I guess I would like to see the number they stop vs the number they miss, and if there was really anything they could do. Remember that the school shooter had, reportedly, 40 prior encounters with the local and state law enforcement agencies.

    I think it just as likely, without any real data to work with here that this is once again, people buying into the big lie being pushed by the right wing media to undercut the FBI in case it finds stuff that hurts Trump. For all we know, the FBI is functioning better than ever. To be clear, I am saying I don’t know and that this is a 50/50 thing and we are all just guessing.

    Steve

  • Did they really drop the ball, or just act within the legal constraints we place upon them?

    Probably some of both.

  • Plus, one of its big responsibilities is counterintelligence.

    which is precisely why I ding them on the recent indictments of Russians. What were they doing in 2014-2016?

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Lol. We really should name who was the head of the FBI from 2013-2016. Under his watch; we had the alleged OPM hack, the alleged Russia hack(s), the Hillary email investigation that he bungled with the November surprise, tainting the Russia investigation with Ohr, McCabe, etc.

    And for his work, he gets a 10+ million book deal; as I see it; Trump did him a favor by firing him.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Just to be fair, Comey wasn’t responsible for all of the dysfunction in the FBI.

    One idea could be to split the FBI into 3 parts, one focused on law enforcement, another on counter intelligence, and last on government corruption.

  • Guarneri Link

    “I do think that the FBI is showing signs of being a late stage bureaucracy, in which its only real missions are institutional survival and expansion.”

    That was my first reaction. Organizations can be changed, but it generally takes crisis, an extraordinary person(s), control and will. Or some of each. Been doing it in a business environment for some time. Government? I suspect it is exponentially more difficult. And as Andy points out, I wouldn’t stop with the FBI.

  • Mathew Molk Link

    I know it’s an old thread, but the FIB (sic) is worse then ever. But I do have an easy solution to clip their wings while leaving them fully functional to provide national security intelligence.

    Strip the jack booted government thugs of their police powers. (Power to arrest). Take away all firearms but the individual handguns of the field agents only to be used only for self protection. Leave police work to policeman like local police of US marshals. No more FIB tactical units. Investigation only.No use of force of any kind. Get a warrant and the DOJ will have the US marshals serve it.

    The same should be done to the ATF. Investigation only . If any use of force is required call the US Marshals. No more ATF no knock raids.

    The FIB who’s main skills is to frame people and manufacture evidence would then be turned back in to the FBI the standing for investigation. ,,,,,, And on the subject, the IRS needs calculators, not pistols. Take those away too. – None of them were armed 90 years ago and things were just fine. – Investigate, turn the facts over to the federal prosecutors, and then testify in court. If it becomes necessary to detain someone on the spot back off and call the local police.

    The only armed non-military organizations in the federal government should be the US Marshals and the Border Patrol. There is no reason to have the other armed at all. – On the local level the Building Inspectors and Health inspectors don’t have arrest powers and do not carry weapons and things work just fine. The Federal agencies should be the same. If not what’s next? – OSHA running around in Bradly Fighting Vehicles?

Leave a Comment