By GENE HOWINGTON
Many have been concerned about the post-9/11 slide into the totalitarian and draconian nature of law enforcement since the inception of the Patriot Act on top of the trend towards militarizing domestic law enforcement that has been going on since Darryl Gate’s days at the LAPD and the Nixon Administration’s unilaterally declared “War on Drugs”. When you hear the words “Federal Bureau of Investigation”, what word or words come to mind? Hoover? Maybe their motto, “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity”? Perhaps “law enforcement”?
From its inception in 1908 as the the Bureau of Investigation (the name FBI was adopted in 1935), the FBI has had the the stated function of “law enforcement”. Apparently that is no longer their stated primary function. Kel McClanahan, a Washington-based national security lawyer, noticed the change in official priorities in a standardized fact sheet that accompanies Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These fact sheets are about the agency from which information is being requested.
The first bulleted item on the FBI fact sheet used to read, “The primary function of the FBI is law enforcement.”
The first bulleted item on the FBI fact sheet now reads, “The primary function of the FBI is national security.”
What is the cause of this change? What does it mean as a practical matter? Is it cause for concern?
To be clear, the change in mission statement reflects agency reforms put in place after 9/11. These changes have been widely criticized for de-prioritizing law enforcement activities, but if you put that aside, the WTC attack was more than a decade ago. The timing of the fact sheet edits is baffling some agency watchers. As McClanahan asked, “What happened in the last year that changed?” Although he only noticed the fact sheet change last month, after reviewing his records, McClanahan saw that the new fact sheet had in fact been going out since last summer. He further speculated, “I think they’re trying to rebrand. So many good things happen to your agency when you tie it to national security.” Good for whom is the question. The FBI has remained silent on the timing of the change but has tried to play up that part of their job has always been national security. Athan Theoharis, FBI historian and Marquette University professor, noted that the change does reflect what’s really happening at the agency’s post 9/11 transformation, but said the timing isn’t clear. “I can’t explain why FBI officials decided to change the fact sheet… unless in the current political climate that change benefits the FBI politically and undercuts criticisms.”
Let’s address the “undercuts criticism” observation first. Consider McClanahan’s word “rebrand” again. Rebranding is “a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, and competitors.” It is a well worn mechanism in both propaganda and advertising (of which there are only minor distinctions, both are designed to change your mind). In fact, one of the primary uses of rebranding is the elimination of a negative image. “What negative image” one might ask. Prof. Theoharis specifically mentioned the negative attention surrounding the FBI’s failure foil last year’s bomb plot at the Boston Marathon by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, but if you look at the history of the FBI it almost reads like a litany of bad press. Keeping files on such “dangerous characters” as Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, John Denver, John Lennon, Jane Fonda, Groucho Marx, Charlie Chaplin, Lou Costello, Sonny Bono, Bob Dylan, Michael Jackson, Mickey Mantle, and Gene Autry. The covert operations falling under the umbrellas known as COINTELPRO used against domestic political groups 1956 and 1971 – tactics which are used to this very day. The Whitey Bulger débâcle where a “protected informant” was allowed to carry on his life of crime on the lam when his former FBI handler warned him of pending RICO indictment, prompting Bulger to flee from justice. Their role in the death of Puerto Rican Nationalist leader Filiberto Ojeda Ríos, whose death at the hands of the FBI in 2005 was widely considered an assassination. The infamous episode of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas wasn’t exactly good press nor was the standoff at Ruby Ridge, Idaho against Randy Weaver and his friend Kevin Harris which resulted in the deaths of Weaver’s son Sammy, his wife Vicki, and Deputy U.S. Marshal William Francis Degan. Add in the fact that it has not gone unnoticed by the American people that the CDS débâcle and subprime mortgage scandal precipitating the financial crisis of 2007-2008 that brought our domestic economy and the global economy to its knees has not resulted in a single prosecution of the major Wall Street players involved in stark contrast to the banking executives who were convicted and sent to prison in the S&L crisis of the late 80’s. It is hard to imagine that this last item is as tied to the agency’s change in priorities as it is to the seeming unwillingness of either AG Eric Holder or his boss, better known as President Obama, to hold those on Wall Street accountable for their actions. As Foreign Policy summarized, “According to a 2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer investigation, the Justice Department did not replace 2,400 agents assigned to focus on counterterrorism in the years following 9/11. The reductions in white-collar crime investigations became obvious. Back in 2000, the FBI sent prosecutors 10,000 cases. That fell to a paltry 3,500 cases by 2005. ‘Had the FBI continued investigating financial crimes at the same rate as it had before the terror attacks, about 2,000 more white-collar criminals would be behind bars,” the report concluded. As a result, the agency fielded criticism for failing to crack down on financial crimes ahead of the Great Recession and losing sight of real-estate fraud ahead of the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.'”
The FBI has plenty of bad image to address.
But what about the costs and benefits to the agency and the American public inherent to this change of focus? According to a 2010 Inspector’s General report, Between 2001 and 2009, the FBI doubled the amount of agents dedicated to counterterrorism. Not coincidentally, that period coincided with a steady decline in the overall number of criminal cases investigated, including white-collar crime. former FBI agent Brad Garrett told Foreign Policy that “[v]iolent crime, property crime and white-collar crime: All those things had reductions in the number of people available to investigate them. Are there cases they missed? Probably.” So one of the costs – specifically borne by the American people – is a decrease in law enforcement which can also be fairly characterized as an increase in successfully perpetrated crimes. While the cat is away the mice will play. That is an express cost to both the American people and the reputation of the criminal justice system.
Among the benefits, the easiest to identify is a boon to the bottom line of agency funding. That government agencies tend to benefit in numerous ways when considered critical to national security as opposed to law enforcement is a given. As Kel McClanahan noted, “If you tie yourself to national security, you get funding and you get exemptions on disclosure cases. You get all the wonderful arguments about how if you don’t get your way, buildings will blow up and the country will be less safe.” While it is arguable that the change in priorities was necessary after the FBI was saddled with a whole new group of responsibilities post-9/11, should that necessity dictate that the “ball gets dropped” elsewhere? Or should it dictate that you either need enough men for all the job and/or a new agency? Why didn’t the matter of domestic counterterrorism fall on the shoulders of the Patriot Act created DHS? Leaving the FBI to do the job it was created to do: Federal law enforcement? Is the cost worth the benefit? Will rebranding fix the underlying issues/problems?
What do you think?
Source: Foreign Policy (thecable.foreignpolicy.com), www.komonews.com, “Follow-up Audit of Federal Bureau of Investigation Personnel Resource Management and Casework” (.pdf), Wikipedia (various embedded reference links).
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
Maybe if one organization was in total control they wouldn’t have the various ego interests protecting turf in the name of the agency….. But then again, that one agency would be held accountable….. Good eye…
Post lost….
I think perhaps we have “rebranding inflation”, everybody rebrands as “national security” as a way to defeat the financial and operational advantages others are enjoying because of their rebranding.
As a consultant and contractor sometimes involved in developing products for the military, I saw this same phenomenon there: Anything you develop for the military you must strive to get designated as a weapon or battle related, because those products have more lenient rules. So a better antennae becomes a “weapon,” a radio transmitter becomes a “battlefield ready transmitter,” software is a weapon, a lens is a weapon, a spring has potential use in a weapon, I swear if we were making pajamas they would be comfy battle pajamas, if we were making desks they would be battle ready desks.
I would say I see that at the university, too, several departments have shifted their focus to “security” simply because that is where the big grant money is. Whatever you do, re-imagine it as somehow related to national security so you can get funded again.
NOTE TO ALL: Moody spam filter is at it again. I’ll try to stay on top of it. Your patience (and persistence) is appreciated.
Gene,
You cut to the heart of the issue that has always been the focus of FBI operations. Hoover created the agency with two goals coming out of his ego. The first was the glorification of himself through the fame Agency he created and ran with an iron fist. The second was the securing of an impregnable power base. Thus as prohibition ended in the 30’s and organized crime morphed into a corporate like structure masterminded by Meyer Lansky, the FBI gained fame chasing petty criminals like Bonny and Clyde, Machine Gun Kelly and John Dillinger. Hoover personally denied that organized crime existed in the U.S. until after the NY State Police raided the summit meeting at Appalachia in 1957 and then he changed his tune. The “national security” theme also played heavily with Hoover’s FBI as he always had a predilection for chasing “communists”. Ironically, it was his undercover FBI infiltrators of the radical movements on the Left that actually acted as catalyzing agents for illegal activity.
Where the importance of your piece shines through is in correctly placing the FBI’s activities where they belong and that is in the context of PR and propaganda. In a large sense, as you delineate, the FBI has been in bed with the Corporate State and loath to prosecute most white collar crimes that the really big players. They’ll target some who appear wealthy and privileged to the general public, but never the really important players.
We see in the Boston Bombing a failure of the FBI to really prevent “terrorism” and certainly as you put it this change in policy attempts to whitewash these failures. The other aspect is that to the general public “terrorism” is a “sexy” attention grabbing issue. Positive attention to the Agency, as you point out, accrues in funding and power.
Law enforcement protects the rights of citizens and the commons.
National security protects the rights of the wealthy and CMIC.
Law enforcement is a matter of equal justice under the rule of Law.
National security is a matter of profit and power.
It’s the age old story of ‘follow the money’ and watch the competition that plays out between the different agencies for that money. The FBI has always been very good at working with all those commie Hollywood types when it comes to developing new TV series or blockbuster movies that reflect well on the agency. I got a chuckle when the CIA’s ‘Homeland’ came out on HBO and there was another CIA chick series, the name of which I can’t recall nor the network and, of course the movie about the collaboration between Hollywood and the CIA during the hostage crisis in Iran. Now NSA has gotten in on the rebranding with the newest female character on NCIS. One of her oft repeated lines is, “No, that’s not what we (NSA) do.” (Thus far all these female characters have been blonde which is an observation for another thread.)
I wonder what department within each agency is tasked with this sort of rebranding and how much their budget is and how deeply buried that particular budget is within the overall budget. Hollywood types have to be wined and dined and … certain financial arrangements have to be agreed upon for no agency in their right mind is going to hand over their reputation to a Hollywood type with out some sort of control through financial contributions.
Remember Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. in the F.B.I. T V series starting back in the mid-’60’s? That show was developed on the heels of The Untouchables in the late 50’s with Robert Stack and Walter Winchell. I think the Ford Motor Co was the advertiser on the F.B.I. and product placement was big. I want to say it was Westinghouse that sponsored the Untouchables but I’m not sure.
Rebranding all over the place and for a long time. And then there’s MI6 in England.
I wonder what new T V series is planned to reflect the FBI’s latest rebranding efforts.
One additional observation: The FBI did manage to keep themselves out of the torture craze that so engulfed the CIA.
Blouise: Do you mean Piper Perabo, in Covert Affairs?
Blouise says: I wonder what new T V series is planned to reflect the FBI’s latest rebranding efforts.
I don’t know. But I’d bet some of the hottest humans on the planet will be auditioning soon, you can’t sell fascism without sex appeal.
Tony C.,
Yes! That was it … Covert Affairs … complete with family, kids, and probably a dog or cat and the mysterious CIA operative family member who lived in the family’s guest house. Three episodes was all I needed to move on.
As to sex appeal and selling fascism … yep, very necessary.
What really piques my curiosity is what lines in the budget are used to hide all the expenses associated with these rebranding efforts. Since the whole purpose is to con the public who will then put pressure on their Congressmen/women to adequately fund these agencies … all this rebranding money has to be hidden from Congress’s view as the monies could be seen as a frivolous use of tax dollars. Also I wonder how large these department are. For instance, are there Special Agents in charge of champagne brunches, power lunches, opening night parties, Golden Globe politicking?
Tony C.,
If you don’t already have Amazon Prime, I highly recommend that you look into it. The savings in shopping goes without saying but Amazon has also entered the series production business just like Netflix. The big hit is Alpha House. Check it out.
Gene,
Speaking of series … it’s Justified night!!
Blouise,
I vaguely recall a television series back in the 1950s called “I Led Three Lives,” about an ordinary family man who also worked as a double agent for the FBI infiltrating “communist” organizations in the United States. A remake of that series today would find a church-going evangelical Republican businessman moonlighting as an FBI informant inflitating Occcupy Wall Street encampments and fomenting hairbrained “terrorist” plots entrapping alienated Muslims whom his colleagues at the bureau would “heroically” bust before the pathetic dupe could set his underpants or shoes on fire — just at the right moment to garner maximum public relations impact ensuring continued government employment and funding from the corporate National Security State conglomeration.
Something just ate my attempt at commentary regarding the old 1950s television series “I Led Three Lives.”
Douglas Rushkoff from the PBS Frontline presentation “The Persuaders”:
So sell us some more used smelly sneakers rebranded as “National Security” footwear. That ought to work.
Douglas Rushkoff from the PBS Frontline presentation “The Persuaders”:
“Fear and Loathing” always sells in the U.S.A., even better than sex. Although, if one can combine elements of the two lizard proclivities in one emotional image or sound-bite, then the mammal cortex (where reason resides) hasn’t got a chance. Thus we have:
I just noticed that when you use the “blockquote” HTML tags something automatically formats the quoted text in italics, and if you’ve used the “italics” tags within the quote, then the text between them reverts to non-italics. You might want to look into that technical matter, Gene.
Ultimately, I think it’s a battle we can’t win but I do my best to stay away from Amazon. Their employment practices in their distro centers are worse than Walmart’s. It is more than “a livable wage” issue. Walmart air conditions their stores ; it’s anecdotal – but I’ve read that Amazon does not air condition their centers. Makes for misery in the summer.
Here’s an interesting article from The Caily Beast. I bears directly on the subject of this post – a raid on some FBI offices in1971.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/07/the-fbi-file-heist-that-changed-history.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter%3Bemail%3Bcheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat%20Sheet#url=/articles/2014/01/07/the-fbi-file-heist-that-changed-history.html
But what may be even more interesting is to ask if this is legitimate journalism or is it an ad for a book? This problem in showing up a lot on the web. Recently, Politico has been “outed” for this.
That’s “Daily Beast”.
Michael Murry @ 2:42p
lol … I think
You’ve written the script and you’ve got the hook for presentation. GMC and Apple can do the product placement so it’s a go, baby. Call me, we’ll do lunch.
“don’t know. But I’d bet some of the hottest humans on the planet will be auditioning soon, you can’t sell fascism without sex appeal.”
Tony,
You know how very sadly true that is.
“I vaguely recall a television series back in the 1950s called “I Led Three Lives,” about an ordinary family man who also worked as a double agent for the FBI infiltrating “communist” organizations in the United States.”
Michael M.,
The man’s name was Herbert Philbrick, who purported was a real undercover agent who infiltrated the Communist Party. It was a turgid program, filled with tension and the fear of discovery by the “evil-doers’. In my mind’s eye I can see the face of the actor that starred in it: Richard Carlson.
“It was loosely based on the life of Herbert Philbrick, a Boston advertising executive who infiltrated the U.S. Communist Party on behalf of the FBI in the 1940s and wrote a bestselling book on the topic, I Led Three Lives: Citizen, ‘Communist’, Counterspy (1952). The part of Philbrick was played by Richard Carlson.
I Led Three Lives lasted 117 episodes. Philbrick narrated each episode and served as a technical consultant — and all scripts were approved by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Nonetheless, the episodes often had very little to do with the actual events of Philbrick’s life, with plotlines taking Philbrick on journeys to Europe and South America. They gradually became more and more outlandish, featuring such supposed “Communist plots” as an attempt to convert vacuum cleaners into bomb launchers” . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Led_3_Lives
To this day I hate to watch programs or movies featuring “undercover” characters and I think it comes from watching that program.
Mike S.,
Thanks for refreshing my memory of that awful black-and-white televsision series way back when. What a piece of Fascist trash. It fit right in with the Nixon/McCarthy/Hoover blacklisting and persecution of Hollywook actors and screenwriters and reflected Hollywood’s browbeaten attempt to prove its “patriotism” and “loyalty” by obseqiously producing outright propaganda films for the Republican party. I probably should have googled the name “I led three lives” and done the research myself, but thanks for doing that for me. I have always felt the same way about that whole “undercover” thing: complete and utter bullshit. Liars, finks, and frauds. The ham-handed government marketing of such corporate propaganda using the co-opted entertainment industry obviously continues today.
“The ham-handed government marketing of such corporate propaganda using the co-opted entertainment industry obviously continues today.”
Michael,
Quite true, but in some ways it is even more subtle thus more pernicious. As for remembering that show I am either blessed…or cursed with the kind of memory that stores all sorts of unrelated trivia regarding media. My father loved that show, even though he was a left-winger (figure that one out?) and I hated but there was only one TV. As a kid I didn’t like the constant tension of it and the character Philbrick was not a compelling one. Richard Carlson as an actor had one skill and that was putting a frightened look on his face and seeming lamb like. Since he was always undercover he had no real scenes of triumphing over evil, only of relief at not being caught when the latest “commie” schemes were thwarted.
The cruel joke of the 60’s too were how our generation felt they were somehow revolutionary only to discover how easily they were co-opted. My problem was that I didn’t stop being a hippie until 1977, when I looked around and realized my “radical” friends had really sold out years before. At that point in my life I carved out a niche for myself that would allow me to live decently without giving in to the blandishments of Corporate America. My career always informed by my mantra “Don’t hurt little people!” .
Mike S.,
“The Sixties were no fouler decade than the Fifties — they merely reaped the Fifties foul harvest — but they were the years when millions of people grew aware that the industrial society had become paradoxically unlivable, incalculably immoral, and ultimately deadly. In terms of passwords, the Sixties were the time when the word progress lost its ancient holiness, and escape stopped being comically obscene. … We are raised to honor all the wrong explorers and discoverers — thieves planting flags, murderers carrying crosses. Let us at last praise the colonizers of dreams.” — Peter S. Beagle, Introduction to The Hobbit (Revised Edition) 1973.
Just a few thoughts that somehow seem relevant today.
Mike
at least in the 60’s you started with idealism. then madison ave and hollywood repackaged and sold it. by the 70’s we just did the drugs, f*ck the idealism.
then saint ronnie came along and made it all better.
Pete,
I totally agree with you. Remember the word in the 70’s “The Me Decade”? And yes it was Mad. Ave and Hollywood leading the co-optation. What I was alluding to in my own life was that it took me halfway through the 70’s to realize that everyone who was dressing like me wasn’t thinking and believing like me. It is embarrassing to admit my naivete.