Explain the functions of intelligence in counterterrorism.

There is a difference between information and intelligence based on the use of the information. The difference resides in the fact that “intelligence is a subset of the broader category of information. Intelligence and the entire process by which it is identified, obtained, and analyzed responds to the needs of policy makers” (Cartera & Carter, 2012). According to Carter and Carter (2012), the function of intelligence can be seen its ability to be processed and identify threats such as self-radicalized terrorists. Currently, the most effective way to identify self-radicalized terrorists is through information reporting from witnesses to behavior that seems out of place or odd. The information should be reported and move through the intelligence cycle to determine the threat level. The problem is that this type of intelligence is that it often does not make it into the intelligence collection process (Cartera & Carter, 2012). This is exemplified in the Fort Hood incident in which there were no reporting of the perpetrators behaviors prior to the incident. This is an intelligence issue because there were signs that the perpetrator of the Fort Hood attack was becoming self-radicalized but was not reported. As such the function of intelligence is to provide accurate and real time data to prevent such as attacks.

References
Cartera, J. G., & Carter, D. L. (2012, April). Law enforcement intelligence: implications for self-radicalized terrorism. Police Practice and Research, 13(2).

Participation
One of the largest areas of intelligence gathering which has become pertinent to counter terrorism is human intelligence or HUMINT. HUMINT takes a variety of forms such as interviews, interrogations, tips, witnesses, etc. (Cartera & Carter, 2012). This intelligence collection processing is accomplished through the integration, analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of the sources in relation to an enemy. The HUMINT process is mainly accomplished through analyzing and questioning the data collected from street level sources which provide eye witness accounts concerning the adversary. This process exploitation differs from other forms of collection because it requires a more subjective methodology such as elicitation which is a method of questioning that is meant to elicit responses that provide needed intelligence from a target that may know or not know valuable information. HUMINT can be used in a wide variety of operations. For example, actionable intelligence from a captured terrorist that reveals a bombing plot would be shared across many different agencies.
References
Cartera, J. G., & Carter, D. L. (2012, April). Law enforcement intelligence: implications for self-radicalized terrorism. Police Practice and Research, 13(2).

Participation
Intelligence collection and processing is really a science dependent on have a strong methodology. Having a sound methodology refers to a system of performing tasks which is measurable, accurate and consistent. The methodology allows for factors such as precision and accuracy to show if the collection process is working optimally. For example, it is entirely possible for data collection to be precise but inaccurate. This would be an invalid model. Accuracy is important because it is the closeness between measurements (observations) and their expectations (“true” values)” (Cesar, Allen, & Eden). The data can be said to be inaccurate as it moves away from the expected value. If the data is precise then it means that it is close with regard to how it is observed. The closer data is when observed or calculated than the greater the precision. However, if data is close in observation or calculation this does not mean that it is accurate. This works both ways but arriving at data which dictates inaccuracy is not helpful due to the fact that it is not showing an expected value (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2013). An example of how these issues are avoided can be seen in the use of collection probability factors (CPF). This measure provides required information for the capability of the intelligence gathering process. There are many other factors that work in this way to provide a sound methodology.
References
Cartera, J. G., & Carter, D. L. (2012, April). Law enforcement intelligence: implications for self-radicalized terrorism. Police Practice and Research, 13(2).
Cesar, E., Allen, P., & Eden, R. (n.d.). Finding a new approach to measure the operational value of intelligence for military operations. United States Army, United States Army. Santa Monica: RAND.
Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2013). Joint Intelligence. US Defense Department , US Defense Department .