The entire first day consists of the following Professional Enhancement Seminars which run concurrently from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with a luncheon featuring a prominent speaker.

Seminar Leaders:
Gen. Tom McInerney USAF (Ret), Consultant and Media Analyst
Adam Shaneson, Shaneson Consulting Group
Andy Monagan, Consultant

SEMINAR ABSTRACT:
This Seminar features ground-breaking advances in intelligence technology, as well as a discussion of those key technology issues which affect the entire intelligence domain at every level - federal, state and local. Contemporary problems of interagency software capability and compatibility will be addressed, as well as recent advances in software for intelligence sharing. There will also be a discussion of new developments in facial identification and voice recognition, and a potentially major breakthrough in remote intelligence assessment of chemical and biological hazards, which will be of great interest to civilian first providers, as well as the military. In addition, this Seminar provides a forum for all intel interests to voice requests to industry vendors for future hardware, software and services - their wish lists for new technology. CEO's of major product development firms will be presenters along with a former NSA Director with significant interagency technological experience.

Seminar Leaders:
Brent Budowsky, Former Senior Staff, Democratic Leadership
Jeff Bliss, Hoover Institution

SEMINAR ABSTRACT:
In the morning, there will be a substantial discussion of the evolving standards regarding prisoner interrogation. Recent Supreme Court decisions have significantly changed the ground rules for intelligence exploitation, POW interrogations and traditional law enforcement investigations. A senior military interrogator, recently returned from Baghdad, will raise the issues surrounding the application of new interrogation restrictions in the real-world threat environment. Later in the Seminar, discussion will focus on the Patriot Act. In considering whether it is an inadequate response to a rising terrorism threat, or an over-the-top reaction to 9/11, there will be an analysis of those sections of the Act, which may be at risk of being struck down as unconstitutional. An examination of impending legislation, and its potential impact on intel organizations, will be the basis for timely discussion and debate. Key members from the House and Senate intelligence committees will participate as panelists and presenters to ensure thorough and comprehensive coverage. Also speaking are former General Counsels for the CIA and DIA, and a former Deputy Attorney General from DOJ.

Seminar Leaders:
Sen. Slade Gorton, 9/11 Commission
Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

SEMINAR ABSTRACT:
One of the more vexing perennial questions in intelligence oversight - how much is too much? - will be addressed in this Seminar. Is there meaningful evidence that too little oversight has taken place? Members of the 9/11 Commission shall present their points of view, as will former DCI's and Directors of other agencies, on the battle to balance the needs for executive secrecy against demands for public accountability. Issues of budget disclosure and notification of covert action will be visited at length. Another oversight-related problem which continues to plague the intelligence community - leaks to the media - will be tackled by members of the House and Senate intelligence committees who will offer their opinions and positions on which branch of government is most responsible for these breaches. Former senior IC leaders will take this opportunity to propose possible solutions, which can work for all parties.

Seminar Leader:
Harold Rhode, Office of the Secretary of Defense

SEMINAR ABSTRACT:
Congress has passed a 600-page bill, which changes the intelligence chain-of-command and rearranges intel responsibilities. It's not hyperbole to suggest that we are going through the most dramatic structural reform in the history of the intelligence community.and this Seminar may be the first forum where members of Congress and the IC can share their reactions to the new legislation behind it all.

Among the questions slated to be discussed are: who reports to the new National Director of Intelligence, from where will staff be drawn, and what is the impact of budgetary control over the IC in the war against terror? Some of the speakers are optimists who see the NDI as a new and powerful force to compel greater cooperation and efficiency among members of the intelligence community, while others are cynics who say that the new Director doesn't even have a chair yet, let alone an office or staff. While some of the participants may underestimate the strength of the consensus shared by Capitol Hill and the White House on the need for radical change after 9/11, most seem to agree that if this legislation proves unworkable, Congress will readily pass a new bill. In any event, it will be a lively debate!

With this Seminar, the Conference is providing a neutral setting for a frank and honest dialogue between lawmakers and the IC. Presenters include representatives of the 9/11 Commission and key members of the House and Senate intelligence committees; and, since this Event takes place only a few weeks after the new Congress convenes, what happens here may play a major role in shaping the results of the legislation.

Seminar Leader:
David Jimenez, U.S. Border Patrol, DHS

SEMINAR ABSTRACT:
How can the U.S. Government possibly hope to retain its intelligence and security specialists when private contractors in Iraq are offering them salaries up to $1000 a day? Is the solution better pension benefits, more suitable career tracks, more flexibility in their assignments? Or is the growth of private security companies the problem? After investing a quarter of a million dollars in training a special forces operator, what will it take to keep that resource on assignment? Congress may have to recognize that very substantial bonuses - in the quarter million dollar per annum range - may have to be paid before covert operatives volunteer to spend years risking their lives behind the lines in hard target countries such as North Korea and Iran. These are but a few of the issues that will be on the table in this Seminar.

With state and local, as well as federal, agencies similarly experiencing great difficulty in finding and retaining qualified translators, speakers will consider outsourcing these needs to the private sector, building a pool of security-cleared translators, or possibly creating a centralized national translation service. They will also discuss federal scholarships for those who wish to train as intelligence specialists with a minimum commitment of national service; the necessity for every translator to have a secret or top secret clearance [which is worse - an uncleared translator or an untranslated secret?]; and, non-compete covenants that are widely used in the private sector. All this, and more, are bound to remind congressional and other intel interests attending this Seminar that you get what you pay for [and right now the private sector is paying more!].

Seminar Leader:
Lee Mason

SEMINAR ABSTRACT:
Since 9/11, we have learned that other nations do things differently, some of them better - in fact, much better! The British have an independent assessment capability at the Joint Intelligence Committee level, and a firewall between evaluation and collection. Israelis have a fully centralized and cross-integrated intelligence data system, whereas America lacks even a central index. The hodge podge of American jurisdictional boundaries causes utter bewilderment among our allies. For example, the U.S. military can investigate foreign threats to our domestic peace, but cannot collect domestic intelligence about foreign connections; the FBI handles domestic crimes, but so do Customs, Immigration, Treasury, etc.; the CIA handles positive collection overseas but so does DIA; DOD controls the satellites, but CIA controls their targeting. In this Seminar, attendees will hear our allies' perspectives of these and other facets of our modus operandi, and about their belief in the concept of "jointness" that transformed the U.S. military in the 1980's, which they feel should be applied to the intelligence community, as well.

Seminar Leader:
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Consultant to State and Defense Departments

SEMINAR ABSTRACT:
This is a forum for state and local law enforcement, business and the remainder of the private sector to discuss their relationships with the federal intelligence community, and with each other. For the first time, each partner within the intelligence domain will have the opportunity to listen to everyone's point of view. It may get uncomfortable, but the Conference is not about sugar-coating or spin. Problems exist - federal agencies do not share well with others. For example, several states are working together to compile their own databases on biological warfare because the federal government will not provide them the necessary data; yet, it's the state and local first responders who will bear the brunt of any future NBC attack. There is no federal-state "need to know" policy, nor any integrated system for providing federal security clearances to our municipal level intelligence providers. On the other hand, very few, if any, state and local law enforcement officials are even minimally trained in federal intelligence collection needs. In this Seminar, sheriffs with real-world experience will share their concerns with governors' representatives and people from federal agencies. While allowing for some much needed venting, participants will focus on the creation of federal intelligence training centers for state and local providers, the use of shared databases, and increased access to federal security clearances by first responders with a potentially critical need to know.

Seminar Leader:
Robert Jordan, Editor, Homeland Defense Journal

SEMINAR ABSTRACT:
For many years, there has been a huge gap between the general public and the IC in the perception of intelligence. The hard truth is, that at local levels, more attention has been paid to the enmity of encroachment on civil liberties than to the possibility of partnership in fighting a common enemy. In the post-9/11 environment, however, there has been a willingness of the citizen soldier to participate in assisting the intelligence community. Some communities have first-rate programs for encouraging training in intelligence collection. A few federal agencies, particularly the CIA, have been doing a credible job in community outreach. Some of these efforts will be reviewed in this Seminar.

Recognizing that, in the long run, members of Congress and the intelligence community work for the same master - the people - and that "the boss" wants more involvement in the war on terror, speakers will also examine whether it is worth the effort, or is public involvement just another PR gimmick like the WWII scrap metal drives. They will attempt to determine if local communities can truly assist federal agencies in the war on terror; and, if so, where they go to get started.

Speaker:
David Major, Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies

SESSION ABSTRACT:
Any serious examination of intelligence reveals its impact on international relations; however, it is essential to also recognize the corresponding role of counterintelligence as an essential component of national strategy. In today's war on terrorism, the role of counterintelligence is at the front lines of identifying, penetrating and neutralizing the terrorist threat. All terrorist attacks are preceded by intelligence collection; and, the tools used to identify and counter espionage are the same tools, methods and applications required to defeat terrorist organizations.

As an example of how essential it will be for the US to use traditional counterintelligence methods to address the terror threat that it faces today, this Seminar will discuss how the British Security Service (MI-5) used them to play the leading role in breaking the back of the terrorism war in Ireland. How MI-5's methods apply to our society will be part of an analysis of US CI that includes a review of the legal and ethical conflict between the requirement to safeguard individual rights, and the need to protect the community, social structure and national security. Also to be addressed are the foundations of, and the relationships between, counterintelligence, internal security, intelligence, security/countermeasures programs and law enforcement.

TRACK ABSTRACT:
This Track brings related groups of several agencies together to work on specific common issues. Here - perhaps for the first time - the FBI, CIA, Treasury, DHS services, etc., will meet to discuss how they can achieve inter-agency "jointness" and interface with the international intelligence community. Sessions are intended for individual agencies to educate their peers, as well as members of Congress, on their positions regarding structural reform. Should there be an American MI5, or should the FBI continue to be the lead agency for domestic intelligence? Are the inter-agency task forces effective in intelligence collection, as well as counter-terrorism? Have Customs, Immigration and Treasury been fully utilized as front-line intelligence collectors? These are some of the questions that will be addressed. Additionally, speakers will look into whether the CIA's experience in surveilling insurgent movements is an applicable resource for domestic law enforcement agencies; and how all intel players can help each other achieve the common goal of protecting domestic tranquility.

TRACK ABSTRACT:
This is an opportunity for career employees of the various armed services to interact with each other to address important contemporary issues, such as common problems in technical collection, al-Qaeda modus operandi, the latest developments in intelligence technology, terrorist profiling and forensic intelligence - and how all that information may be shared with state and local law enforcement. The military's experience with outsourcing will be discussed and, for example, whether translation should be done in-house or through a central facility. Panelists will also look into where Congress should allocate the greater of its resources - to satellites or UAVs? (Which gives the "bigger bang for the buck?") And no Track of this nature would be complete without examining how well the Pentagon works with the rest of the intelligence community, and what it can do better.

Even more significantly, this will be the first venue for those working in military intelligence to meet with members of the new Congress. At the top of the agenda for discussion is the recently enacted 600-page bill restructuring the IC under a National Director of Intelligence. Whether characterized as a turf battle, or a genuine effort to protect the military chain-of-command, the controversy over targeting authority and budgetary control has only just begun; and, it will be in full bloom in this the Conference Track.

TRACK ABSTRACT:
Our IC assumes and expects that state and local law enforcement agencies will provide key intelligence in the war against terror. But, thus far, intelligence sharing hasn't been a two-way street. Some states are even building their own intelligence databases on biological weapons threats. And what role will the new National Director of Intelligence have in sorting out this tangle of jurisdictions and split responsibilities? These are just a few of the issues that S&L specialists will address in this Track. They will also discuss what a state Governor needs to know; whether Intelligence 101 should be required for new members of Congress - as well as police chiefs; what county sheriffs have to know about profiles of terrorists living in their jurisdictions; new intel technology; and, helicopters versus UAVs for police forces.

Here are some of the other questions to be answered in these jam-packed two days: What should local law enforcement know about forensic intelligence for international money laundering? When do the needs for national intelligence overrule a local criminal investigation? Is it true that we should never catch - just surveil - a spy? How does the intelligence community share classified information with local leadership which doesn't have security clearances? Should sensitive law enforcement information be included in a central investigative database? Do we need to require that federal agencies keep state and local leadership in the loop? Are there ways of ensuring that our state and local first responders are truly part of the total intelligence mix?

TRACK ABSTRACT:
Private-sector businesses have developed expertise in the legal and ethical collection and analysis of information regarding the capabilities, vulnerabilities and intentions of competitors. Their goal is to create strategic value and competitive advantage in business decision-making and company performance. This Track offers unique perspectives into this use of competitive intelligence in business and industry, and the issues surrounding the public/private intelligence relationship. An expert group of practitioners, many of whom are former government intelligence officers, will provide insights on how the business community collects and analyses relevant, timely and actionable intelligence for decision-makers in organizations of any size. Discussions will focus on the public/private intelligence partnership, counterintelligence, cyber security, global collection, analysis tools and data mining; and, provide an opportunity for professional intel organizations within government to dialogue with their corporate counterparts on common intelligence interests.

TRACK ABSTRACT:
The Conference's theme, "Widening the Intelligence Domain," reflects the broadening of the responsibility for intelligence in this age of terrorism well beyond the customary turf of the IC's civilian and military agencies. Today, intelligence is everyone's concern - or at least it should be - from the IC right down to the general public. And it may very well be that some of our best and brightest players are in the private sector, and being underutilized. With that in mind, this Track was planned as a forum for the often neglected stakeholders in the intel mix - members of the press, academia, ethnic and religious groups, and non-governmental organizations. A whole host of private-sector issues will discussed during these two days of sessions, none the least of which is how well the components within this group can work among themselves, and with federal, state and local government officials. Speakers will address ways to improve minority recruitment; how to do a better job of opening a dialogue with Muslim Americans and other groups, given a shortage of language and area expertise; and, the role of academic and private research organizations in contributing to our understanding of foreign trends and cultures. Then there's the media - does it have a legitimate complaint on declassification, or is the press selling our secrets for profit? Ground rules for the press, who makes the rules, the use of paraphrases instead of directly quoting from intercepts or classified documents; and, if true secrets must be kept, what is the press's role in exposing secret corruption? These issues, and plenty more, will be on the table. And, finally, there will be a no-holds-barred debate about whether the academic community and NGO's are becoming pawns of foreign powers who make generous donations, or are they bastions of free speech that the IC does not want to hear.

Speaker:
Dr. James Arnold Miller Chairman, Interaction Systems Incorporated

SESSION ABSTRACT:
Open Source Intelligence and 21st Century Threats

The recently approved intelligence reform legislation requires the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to ensure that the intelligence community makes efficient and effective use of open source information and analysis. This special plenary presentation will address how anyone in the traditional intelligence community - or in the public safety community or companies - can systematically locate, select, organize, retrieve, analyze, and disseminate useful open source intelligence (OSINT). The speaker will emphasize how to "separate the wheat from the chaff," especially concerning the torrents of information besieging analysts on such pressing 21st century threats as weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and insurgency.

Also in the new reform bill is the sense of Congress that the DNI should establish an intelligence center to coordinate collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of OSINT. The speaker will address whether such a center is necessary, and if so, how it might function to significantly improve the use of OSINT with regard to major threats. Also to be discussed is how electronically networked experts in the private sector could collaborate to substantially supplement secret and proprietary intelligence through such activities as building unclassified foundation databases on major threat topics; conducting alternative analysis; and providing strategic warning on global threats.

TRACK ABSTRACT:
This Track brings related groups of several agencies together to work on specific common issues. Here - perhaps for the first time - the FBI, CIA, Treasury, DHS services, etc., will meet to discuss how they can achieve inter-agency "jointness" and interface with the international intelligence community. Sessions are intended for individual agencies to educate their peers, as well as members of Congress, on their positions regarding structural reform. Should there be an American MI5, or should the FBI continue to be the lead agency for domestic intelligence? Are the inter-agency task forces effective in intelligence collection, as well as counter-terrorism? Have Customs, Immigration and Treasury been fully utilized as front-line intelligence collectors? These are some of the questions that will be addressed. Additionally, speakers will look into whether the CIA's experience in surveilling insurgent movements is an applicable resource for domestic law enforcement agencies; and how all intel players can help each other achieve the common goal of protecting domestic tranquility.

TRACK ABSTRACT:
This is an opportunity for career employees of the various armed services to interact with each other to address important contemporary issues, such as common problems in technical collection, al-Qaeda modus operandi, the latest developments in intelligence technology, terrorist profiling and forensic intelligence - and how all that information may be shared with state and local law enforcement. The military's experience with outsourcing will be discussed and, for example, whether translation should be done in-house or through a central facility. Panelists will also look into where Congress should allocate the greater of its resources - to satellites or UAVs? (Which gives the "bigger bang for the buck?") And no Track of this nature would be complete without examining how well the Pentagon works with the rest of the intelligence community, and what it can do better.

Even more significantly, this will be the first venue for those working in military intelligence to meet with members of the new Congress. At the top of the agenda for discussion is the recently enacted 600-page bill restructuring the IC under a National Director of Intelligence. Whether characterized as a turf battle, or a genuine effort to protect the military chain-of-command, the controversy over targeting authority and budgetary control has only just begun; and, it will be in full bloom in this Conference Track.

TRACK ABSTRACT:
Our IC assumes and expects that state and local law enforcement agencies will provide key intelligence in the war against terror. But, thus far, intelligence sharing hasn't been a two-way street. Some states are even building their own intelligence databases on biological weapons threats. And what role will the new National Director of Intelligence have in sorting out this tangle of jurisdictions and split responsibilities? These are just a few of the issues that S&L specialists will address in this Track. They will also discuss what a state Governor needs to know; whether Intelligence 101 should be required for new members of Congress - as well as police chiefs; what county sheriffs have to know about profiles of terrorists living in their jurisdictions; new intel technology; and, helicopters versus UAVs for police forces.

Here are some of the other questions to be answered in these jam-packed two days: What should local law enforcement know about forensic intelligence for international money laundering? When do the needs for national intelligence overrule a local criminal investigation? Is it true that we should never catch - just surveil - a spy? How does the intelligence community share classified information with local leadership which doesn't have security clearances? Should sensitive law enforcement information be included in a central investigative database? Do we need to require that federal agencies keep state and local leadership in the loop? Are there ways of ensuring that our state and local first responders are truly part of the total intelligence mix?

TRACK ABSTRACT:
Private-sector businesses have developed expertise in the legal and ethical collection and analysis of information regarding the capabilities, vulnerabilities and intentions of competitors. Their goal is to create strategic value and competitive advantage in business decision-making and company performance. This Track offers unique perspectives into this use of competitive intelligence in business and industry, and the issues surrounding the public/private intelligence relationship. An expert group of practitioners, many of whom are former government intelligence officers, will provide insights on how the business community collects and analyses relevant, timely and actionable intelligence for decision-makers in organizations of any size. Discussions will focus on the public/private intelligence partnership, counterintelligence, cyber security, global collection, analysis tools and data mining; and, provide an opportunity for professional intel organizations within government to dialogue with their corporate counterparts on common intelligence interests.

TRACK ABSTRACT:
The Conference's theme, "Widening the Intelligence Domain," reflects the broadening of the responsibility for intelligence in this age of terrorism well beyond the customary turf of the IC's civilian and military agencies. Today, intelligence is everyone's concern - or at least it should be - from the IC right down to the general public. And it may very well be that some of our best and brightest players are in the private sector, and being underutilized. With that in mind, this Track was planned as a forum for the often neglected stakeholders in the intel mix - members of the press, academia, ethnic and religious groups, and non-governmental organizations. A whole host of private-sector issues will discussed during these two days of sessions, none the least of which is how well the components within this group can work among themselves, and with federal, state and local government officials. Speakers will address ways to improve minority recruitment; how to do a better job of opening a dialogue with Muslim Americans and other groups, given a shortage of language and area expertise; and, the role of academic and private research organizations in contributing to our understanding of foreign trends and cultures. Then there's the media - does it have a legitimate complaint on declassification, or is the press selling our secrets for profit? Ground rules for the press, who makes the rules, the use of paraphrases instead of directly quoting from intercepts or classified documents; and, if true secrets must be kept, what is the press's role in exposing secret corruption? These issues, and plenty more, will be on the table. And, finally, there will be a no-holds-barred debate about whether the academic community and NGO's are becoming pawns of foreign powers who make generous donations, or are they bastions of free speech that the IC does not want to hear.