Sure, I'd be very happy to comment.
One of the things we both have to deal with as nations is trying to describe and identify today's problems and our future problems and challenges in yesterday's terms. When I say intelligence, we all immediately conjure thoughts of 007, Cold War definitions, military intelligence. In our IRTPA of 2004, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act, and I will quote that law as that's our own, we go to great lengths to use the word “information”.
This is where the two areas start getting very grey. We have to be very cautious in the United States, as do you, I would suspect, as to what is information, what is intelligence, what is military intelligence, what is national security intelligence, what is law enforcement intelligence. These areas get grey.
We have to learn to understand how to collect that information, whether it be from what we call open sources, from clandestine sources, from international sources, or from specific activities, and piece that information together, yet absolutely respect the rights of our citizens. The last thing we want to have are non-law enforcement government agencies collecting intelligence on individual citizens. We are constantly very cautious of that. It would violate our Constitution. It violates the ideals and beliefs we have as a nation. That doesn't make the challenge any easier.
We have to make sure there is a sharing of information. There has to be a hands-off at some period. There has to be a turnover to those who are duly vested with responsibility for law enforcement, who can gather that type of intelligence, or information, whatever you choose to call it.
One of the things we have to realize is that we cannot stereotype terms and apply them across the board. We have to be very cautious of how we use those terms.