Pros, cons of foreign domestic intelligence.

Domestic security services in foreign democratic societies that lack law enforcement powers are better able to concentrate on assessing threats and ease interagency collaboration, according to a recently released report from Rand Corp.

The report, which compares domestic intelligence bureaus in Canada, France, the United Kingdom and Australia, analyzes strengths and weaknesses of each counterterrorism structure in an effort to guide the United States as it ponders creating its own domestic intelligence bureau.

Divorcing law enforcement from intelligence gathering ensures that domestic counterterrorism bureaus devote all of their resources to preemptive information gathering, the report states. Personnel who would not normally be drawn to police work find a place in domestic intelligence bureau. This helps foster "well-rounded, creative and forward looking analytical assessments that have straddled both the tactical and strategic dimensions," the report says.

However, the report warns that the track record of the four nations is "far from perfect" and notes that accepted democratic norms have been violated in the name of counterterrorism. A lack of trust between agencies, a familiar specter in the U.S. intelligence community, persists in each nation. In France, the report points out, police and intelligence agencies have not only failed to coordinate but have sometimes worked at cross-purposes. The report also cautions that the intelligence programs have suffered from a lack of oversight or legislative control.