CRITICS GIVE FALSE IMPRESSION OF NDIC'S VITAL TASK

- -- What I read in or hear from the media about the National Drug
Intelligence Center can only be characterized as either
misinformation or disinformation.

It is difficult to ascertain whether this occurs because of benign
ignorance of NDIC's assigned role within the counter-drug community,
or more insidiously from petty partisan politics combined with
interagency funding envy. (I have my idea as to the answer, and I
will let the reader decide for him-or herself.) Unfortunately, since
the perception of media reporting about NDIC, although inaccurate, is
viewed as reality, both the reputation and employees of NDIC are
continuously painted with a tarnished brush. I speak with some
experience, as I am a retired Drug Enforcement Administration
supervisory special agent with 30-plus years of narcotic enforcement
experience - almost seven (1997-2004) of which were an assignment by
the DEA to the NDIC.

I served in a number of positions at NDIC. The majority of my time
was spent in the Document and Computer Exploitation Division (DOCEX),
and for more than a year I had the privilege of serving as an acting
assistant director of NDIC, directly in charge of this division.
Among other assignments, I served in a supervisory capacity in the
intelligence division.

As a result of my service and experience with NDIC, I can
unequivocally state that the DOCEX performs a unique and invaluable
service for the federal narcotics-enforcement community, and on
occasion provides assistance to state and local narcotics-enforcement
agencies operating in a task-force environment with a federal agency.

The tedious and labor-intensive work of NDIC's employees, which
results in comprehensive analysis of seized documents and electronic
equipment (computers, cell phones, etc.), has proven invaluable to
law-enforcement officers and prosecutors throughout the United
States. A testimony to their effectiveness in helping to obtain
guilty pleas and convictions in major drug-trafficking cases is
evidenced by the numerous letters received by NDIC from the agencies
to which assistance was provided. These letters, written by assistant
U.S. attorneys, local prosecutors and federal, state and local
law-enforcement agencies, are received on a regular basis and contain
effusive praise for the work and effort expended by NDIC analysts.

Unfortunately, these letters are not published in the media. It also
should be noted that immediately after the tragic events of Sept. 11,
2001, DOCEX, augmented by additional cross-trained NDIC personnel,
deployed to the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., to analyze the
documents and electronic media pertaining to all of the events that occurred.

The group, numbering at times in excess of 100, worked on this
material for months before returning to Johnstown. No other
law-enforcement or intelligence entity in the nation is capable of
accomplishing this type of work. My experience as a supervisor with
the intelligence division, which prepares strategic intelligence
reports for the counter-drug community and other intelligence reports
as requested, also was extremely positive. Members of this division
labor somewhat in anonymity, and because they act as honest brokers
of information received, sometimes receive kudos and jeers for the same report.

Their reports are prepared with a maximum of diligence and
exactitude, and the jeers usually arise when a report contravenes a
long-standing belief or uncovers a trend not previously recognized by
law-enforcement entities, recognition of which, unfortunately, infers
that the law-enforcement agencies in that area were not as diligent
as they should have been.

The intelligence division also receives letters from agencies
praising its efforts, but these, too, are unavailable for public
consumption. The refrain heard in the media by the chorus of NDIC
naysayers continues to defy the facts. All of the federal drug
intelligence centers work in concert, and each has an individual
responsibility. They work with each other by agreement among the
agency leaders and by mandate of the General Counterdrug Intelligence
Plan - the signatories of whom are the attorney general; secretaries
of defense, treasury, state and transportation; and other
Cabinet-level officials.

Are all of these federal officials acting in complicity with U.S.
Rep. John Murtha and continually suborning the annual expenditure of
millions of federal dollars on a useless, duplicative, make-work
center in Johnstown? Of course not.

The drug intelligence centers routinely work together on a
collaborative and collegial basis, and the defined responsibility or
role of NDIC is to produce strategic intelligence reports, produce
other reports as requested and provide document and computer
exploitation services to the federal law-enforcement community.

NDIC is involved in other tangential efforts, providing intelligence
and DOCEX training to law enforcement, but the core work is clearly
defined. There is no duplication of effort among the centers. The
constant media barrage against NDIC, most recently spearheaded by
Rep. Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who to my knowledge has never
been to NDIC, nor has any firsthand knowledge of this agency, is
difficult to comprehend unless seen in the light of petty partisan
politics. Also, the constant argument and harping that NDIC's
location in Pennsylvania is too far from Washington to be effective
is fallacious. It is an easy three-hour drive away. Does anyone who
puts forth this argument have a map of the United States?

A major DEA drug-intelligence center has been located in El Paso,
Texas, since the 1970s. This center has operated effectively and
efficiently for many years. Its distance from Washington has not been
an impediment. As to NDIC's origin, the necessity for the agency and
the unique role that it would play was the brainchild of the
Republican administration of President George H.W. Bush, which
determined that a strategic intelligence center would be required for
the war on drugs. NDIC's opening came to fruition during the
Demo-cratic Clinton administration.

Attorneys general in Democratic and Republican administrations have
praised NDIC's work, and Attorneys General Janet Reno and John
Ashcroft made official visits to the agency.

During Ashcroft's visit in August 2002, I spoke to him and heard him
praise the work of NDIC's DOCEX and intelligence divisions. It is
curious to note that the current Bush administration somehow decided
that NDIC was redundant and unnecessary a few years ago, at about the
same time that Murtha began to voice his concerns - which the
administration clearly did not want to hear - about the situation in
Iraq. This must be merely a coincidence since, as a taxpayer, I would
think that the current administration always operates with the best
interests of the general public in mind and would not try to cut off
the funding of a vital national resource in the drug war merely to
satisfy some petty partisan political vendetta.

I do not know whether the Bush administration or Rogers actually pays
much attention to the war on drugs, but, in my assessment, it is at
best - utilizing all of the resources available - a holding action.
For the Bush administration - if in fact this is what is occurring -
to try to eliminate a national resource in the war on drugs for
purely political purposes is unconscionable.

And if Rogers is serving as the point man in these efforts, as a
former FBI special agent, he should be ashamed of his behavior. Is
NDIC a perfect organization?

No. Nor is any other federal agency or organization. There have been
growing pains. There also was an unfortunate instance of upper
management malfeasance, which, although appropriately addressed by
the Justice Department, garnered local press headlines.

None of this affected the constant, consistent effort of the NDIC
work force to diligently complete its assigned responsibilities.
Unfortunately, the persistent negative media attention relating to
the possible removal of funding and closing of the center, through
the efforts of the Bush administration and Republican legislators,
affects the employees' morale, and this is unjust and unwarranted.
The war on drugs is not a partisan issue; it affects all Americans.
NDIC, because it is a small agency operating within the confines of a
vocal Democratic congressman, should not continually be made the
punching bag for Washington bureaucrats and for those who have no
clue, nor seem to care, how the NDIC employees' efforts and hard work
are assisting in the war on drugs.

The fact that the NDIC director is serving his country on active duty
in Iraq with the Army Reserve and is not able to personally address
the attacks on his beleaguered agency exacerbates even further the
disgraceful efforts to disparage the work of the people at NDIC.

John T. Counihan spent 17 years as a special agent with the Drug
Enforcement Administration in New York City before being assigned to
the U.S. Embassy in Ottawa, Canada. While in Canada, he spent almost
seven years as a DEA special agent (his title was assistant country
attache) assigned to work on collaborative cross-border
investigations with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He retired in
2004 as a supervisor with the National Drug Intelligence Center.