How is centralization helping? The problem is that the Atty. Gen. isn't prosecuting evident sedition
Nonsense, there's clear accountability now and they can't police the deep state even with other organizations
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, Box 4, Folder COINTELPRO
A centralized intelligence agency heading all lower agencies will protect citizens more effectively
Centralization will increase accountability
Centralization will increase efficiency
Power in the hands of the few, in the context of intelligence agencies, leads to abuse
Centralization concentrates power in the hands of too few
J. Edgar Hoover directed FBI for 48 years. May have pursued FBI interests over American interests.
Hoover's fervent Anti-Communism a ploy to increase U.S. support of FBI and FBI surveillance of political activists
Decentralized power is an enduring fixture of American politics and should remain that way
Third paragraph of "The Truth about J. Edgar Hoover," TIME Archives
COINTELPRO, pushed by Hoover, ignored FBI jurisdiction in attempts to discredit movements to help American citizens
Having a clear group responsible for national security may allow swifter and more sweeping changes should abuse be found
Data are managed separately between myriad agencies. Lack of communication dangerous. A head agency may increase communication.
Past attempts at centralizing intelligence agencies have been unsuccessful
The policy-making powers of the leadership of intelligence agencies may be independent of how the agencies are organized
Lack of oversight led to perceived abuses such as COINTELPRO. Oversight and centralization need not be mutually incompatible
Hypothetical Example: Committee of leaders, appointed and elected, head the proposed central agency, minimizing abuse risk
Creation of the Office of Strategic Services and Centralized Intelligence Agency did not lead to increased collaboration or centralization
Theoharis, Athan. The Quest for Absolute Security.
Current intelligence agencies will wish to protect their autonomy
Individual agencies lean towards classification, which can restrict data sharing in dangerous ways
Young, Alex. "Too Much Information: Ineffective Intelligence Collection." Harvard International Review.
The Atty. Gen. clearly is responsible for prosecuting abuses like FISA/trump investigation based on steele Dossier, for example https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/12/05/deep-state-update-2/ , the Hillary Clinton obstruction of justice destroying her emails rather than comply with the subpoena issued, the CIA spying on Congress and Brennan the director lying about it under oath to Congress, and then admitting that he had lied under oath to Congress, and not even losing his job until his party lost the election. We have centralized accountability and it isn't working.
Clearly now the Atty. Gen. is responsible for preventing abuses within the FBI and CIA and clearly they are failing although two years later all of the people involved in the FiISA and Trump and Hilary whitewash scandals have resigned or been fired, but none of them have yet to be charged in spite of evident crimes. And they are still doing things like raiding the homes of protected whistleblowers. And the head of CIA lied under oath to the Senate about spying on the Senate, and no criminal charges have ever been filed, in fact it took a long time for him to lose his security clearance, And losing the election for him to lose his job.
And you're claiming that having only one agency will increase accountability as opposed to having only one Atty. Gen.? I don't get it?