[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 18402]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         REMOVING THE HANDCUFFS FROM THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, October 2, 2001

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the Central Intelligence Agency 
established guidelines that limited the ability of its field personnel 
to recruit individuals with checkered backgrounds. Henceforth, the 
human rights history of potential assets would have to be thoroughly 
vetted. This limitation has been criticized by the National Commission 
on Terrorism, by former CIA Directors Woolsey and Gates, by the Vice-
President, and others. They correctly note that it is precisely those 
individuals with shady backgrounds who are able to infiltrate terrorist 
organizations. If we are to penetrate and destroy highly secretive 
networks such as al Qaida, then we must deal with some very unsavory 
characters. We must remove the handcuffs from our intelligence service.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member places into the Record a prescient op/ed 
from the September 14, 2001, edition of the Norfolk Daily News. 
Entitled ``Spies Needed to Stop Terrorism,'' the editorial correctly 
notes that this nation must overcome its aversion to old-fashioned 
spying and aggressively seek to infiltrate and destroy terrorist 
networks. Therefore, this Member strongly urges his colleagues to 
carefully read this editorial as this is one area that we must reform 
successfully to win the war against terrorism.

                     SPIES NEEDED TO STOP TERRORISM


   New report shows why covert activities and use of informants are 
                               necessary

       This week's terrorist acts have introduced Americans to a 
     frightening new world in which terrorism could someday be 
     even worse--nuclear bombs in suitcases, for instance--and 
     what that means is that we have to become as surefire as 
     possible in stopping it. We won't if we do not get over our 
     aversion to old-fashioned spying.
       As the National Commission on Terrorism pointed out in a 
     report last year, you cannot prevent terrorism if you don't 
     know the plans of the terrorists, and you cannot know the 
     plans unless you infiltrate terrorist organizations. Six 
     years ago, the CIA backed off aggressive recruitment of 
     infiltrators because some of them had themselves committed 
     despicable acts. The agency no longer wanted to dirty its 
     hands.
       But as the commission report observes, police have long 
     used informants who were themselves criminals. The public 
     accepts the practice for the obvious reason that it helps 
     police control crime. Controlling terrorism is an even more 
     compelling reason to put aside qualms, for as the commission 
     noted and this week's terrorism demonstrates, terrorism has 
     graduated from a Marxist-Leninist model of killing relatively 
     few to a fanatical model of killing as many as possible.
       The commission analysis is that the Marxist terrorists had 
     a political agenda that they felt could not be fulfilled it 
     their acts took too many lives and spurred widespread public 
     disgust, whereas the religiously motivated terrorists of 
     today are simply seeking revenge. If it is hate that drives 
     you more than the accomplishment of a particular goal, the 
     more deaths achieved, the more satisfaction. We already know 
     that thousands were killed Tuesday. Armed with nuclear 
     weapons, terrorists could kill millions, and that fact 
     provides a context in which the question of spying should be 
     considered.

     

                          ____________________