Amendment to increase diversity in US intel agencies passes

An amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H.R.2701) sponsored by Alcee Hastings (D – FL) recently passed a House vote. For those unaware, Wiki:

A Representative since 1993 and a Democrat, Hastings was previously a lawyer and judge. He spent ten years as a federal judge (1979–1989), but was impeached and removed from office for corruption and perjury. He was the sixth federal judge to be impeached and removed from office in American history.

A corrupt, perjuring, impeached federal judge is Vice Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, AND a senior member of the House Rules Committee. (Is there no challenger in south Florida?)

The amendment states:

Amendment to require the DNI [Director of National Intelligence], in coordination with the heads of the elements of the intelligence community, to submit to Congress a report on the plans of each element of the community, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to increase diversity within that element.

The amendment passed by a vote of 401 to 11. Hastings commented on the passing:

“I have stated time and again that the Intelligence Community is not diverse enough to do its job of stealing and analyzing foreign countries’ secrets. Diversity is a mission imperative,” Hastings asserted. “We need people who blend in, speak the language, and understand the cultures in the countries that we are targeting.” “It is time for the Intelligence Community to get serious about improving diversity for the sake of our national security,” further noted Hastings. “Diversity means hiring. Hiring more Arab-Americans. It means hiring more Iranian-Americans, more Pakistani-Americans, more Chinese-Americans, and more Korean-Americans. If the Intelligence Community is to succeed in its global mission, it must have a global face.”

Putting aside Hastings inadvertent racial profiling, hiring for the sake of diversity (worse, in the name of security) rather than identifying the threats and resources needed to combat such threats is not only unwise, it can be catastrophic. We witnessed firsthand how the Army’s approach to diversity led directly to the Fort Hood massacre of fourteen Americans by a Muslim jihadi. Yet even after that, the Army’s primary concern was that its “diversity” might become a casualty.

We also know that there have been many scandals in the intelligence community as “diverse” candidates sympathetic to the enemy have acted as double-agents, shared information with the enemy and withheld information from authorities. Not to mention intentionally overlooking capable linguists simply because they were not Muslim.

Keep an eye on the “diversification” of U.S. intel agencies and future Ft. Hoods.