This document proposes additional funding for counterterrorism intelligence and cooperation between the FBI, CBP, and ICE. It recommends a "triangular information network" where the agencies share intelligence to identify potential threats at borders and within the US in a proactive manner. Currently, counterterrorism efforts are too reactive; improved information sharing and watchlists could help intercept individuals earlier. The proposal analyzes historical terrorism cases like the Boston Marathon bombing to argue for more proactive domestic counterterrorism strategies.

1. POLICY BRIEFING:
IMPLEMENTING TIN’S AND
PROACTIVE RESPONSE
PatrickT. Cannon
Federal Bureau of Investigations: Executive Assistant Director for Counter-
Terrorism and Counter-Intelligence

2. Proposal to The Executive
Office of POTUS
 Recommend additional funding for research
to further improve counter
intelligence/surveillance for counterterrorism
operations within the United States and
improve in agency cooperation between the
following agencies:
 Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)
 Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)
 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

3. How Does this Apply To The
FBI
 Since its creation, the FBI has primarily been a domestic
investigative force. Assisting local departments with high priority
cases and conducting national security operations on a domestic
level the bureau post 9/11 more emphasis has been placed on
counter terrorism operations.
 While these improvements have helped significantly, the higher
focus was placed on operations abroad. But what do we do once
groups set up shop within our borders?
 With the additional funding, U.S. agencies like the FBI can
establish operations to track, locate and subsequently take down
sleeper cells and lone wolf operators that have gained access into
the U.S.
 additionally the funding can be used to increase intelligence
capacity to help update the U.S. State Departments FTO,TIDE
andTEL designation lists, by doing this it creates a two layer
approach to combating terrorist operations in the U.S.

4. The Issue
 Failure to use update and/or use systems like
TIDE,FTO, orTEL reduces our ability to
identify possible terror related suspects at
various points of entry:
 Sea Port’s
 Air port’ s
 Mexican /Canadian Borders
 Once such suspects are within the border
they do not come into law enforcement
agencies radar until it is much too late.

5. Historical Contexts
Lone-Wolf;
Radical Ideology
• Boston Bombing; April, 15th 2013
• Dzhokhar andTamerlanTsarnev
• “Russian authorities warned the FBI in early 2011 that suspected bomber
TamerlanTsarnaev may have been a follower of “radical Islam,” (Arsenault, Bryan,
Valencia, & Cramer, 2013)
• “The FBI had this guy on the radar and somehow he fell off” (Arsenault, Bryan,
Valencia, & Cramer, 2013)
Islamic- Radical
• “Underwear Bomber”; December 25th 2009
• Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
• “Because officials at the borders encounter travelers and their documents first …
they must work closely with intelligence officials.” (Kephart, 2010)

6. Status Quo
 Not an option
 PRO: Post 9/11 has created heightened security
for terrorism.
 PRO: Information Sharing has increased but in
limited capacities.
 CON: Currently most counter-terror operations
are reactive.

7. Research on Radical Roots
 Not an Option:
 CON:This issue is not a matter of radicalization or
extremist roots.
 PRO:While understanding these concepts are
important they will not help proactive response or
emergency preparedness.

8. Emergency Preparedness
 Correct Option:
 We need to hit them before they hit us and if that
fails strike hard and strike fast.
 Information sharing needs to take a more
proactive approach.

9. Recommendation and its break
down.
 Further Research and Development of
Proactive Response On All Fronts –
 Information SharingTriangulation:
 FBI- Gather Intel ; Investigation andTactical Response,
JointTerrorismTask Force (JTTF)
 ICE – Process up to date Intel to provide accurate
“watch lists” at border, Immigration data base
 CBP – First Contact at border.
 This is a more concentrated form of information
sharing.

10. Barrier Response And TIN’S
 What are the barriers?
 The Border:
 Must be crossed to gain entry whether through legal or illegal
means.
 CBP Officer’s encounter a “two pushing forces” factor on the
border when processing people entering the United States .
 Timely Manner
 Baring Illegal Individuals
 Within the U.S.:
 Once a potential terror suspects is on U.S. soil, we have home
field advantage.
 We know the turf, therefore we must act!

11. Barrier Counter-Balance
Theory

12. Triangular Information
Network Sharing: TIN’S
CBP
• First Barrier Responders
• Baring, Deportation and
Removal
FBI
• Second Barrier
Responders
• Intelligence Gathering
andTactical and
Investigative Actions
ICE
• Support
• CreateWatch Lists
and Set Up Red Flags

13. References
 Arsenault, M., Bryan, B.,Valencia, M. J., &
Cramer, M. (2013). FBI was warned 2 years
ago of alleged bomber’s radical shift. Boston
Globe , 1 .
 Kephart, J. L. (2010). KEPHART: Underwear
bomber warning. WashingtonTimes , 1.