and, at the time, very little was known about the organization or who might be involved.

人們對該組織或可能的參與者知之甚少。

The investigation turned up one name—Khallad—and also a phone number, which rang a seemingly random payphone outside of a condo building in Kuala Lumpur.

調查發現了一個名字 - Khallad - 以及一個電話號碼，該號碼撥通後是在吉隆坡的一個公寓大樓外看似隨機的公用電話。

The FBI forwarded the information to the CIA and asked if they knew anything about that name or number, the CIA said they had nothing, and that was that.

FBI將這些信息轉交給了CIA，詢問他們是否知道有關那個名字或號碼的任何信息，CIA表示他們一無所知，就這樣了。

But was that… that?

但真的是這樣嗎？

Because that… was a lie.

因為那......是個謊言。

The CIA, in fact, knew who Khallad was—and that that wasn't his real name—and they knew exactly what that phone number was, too.

事實上，CIA知道 Khallad 是誰，並且那不是他的真名，他們也確切知道那個電話號碼的來源。

They'd even sent Malaysian authorities to take photos of the condo building earlier that year.

他們甚至在當年早些時候派遣馬來西亞當局拍攝了那座公寓大樓的照片。

That building, it turns out, was the location where Al-Qaeda was putting together the plans for the attacks of September 11th.

事實證明，這棟大樓正是蓋達組織籌備9/11襲擊計劃的地點。

The CIA knew who attended those meetings, where they went, and when they entered the United States early the following year.

CIA 知道誰參加了這些會議，他們去了哪裡，以及他們在隔年初進入美國的時間。

Legally-speaking, that is when they became the FBI's problem—the CIA can't operate on American soil—but the FBI didn't know any of this.

從法律上講，這就是他們成為FBI的問題的時候了 （因為中央情報局不能在美國境內運作）但是FBI對此卻一無所知。

The CIA refused to tell them anything, even when they explicitly asked for it.

中央情報局拒絕告訴他們任何事情，即使他們明確要求。

So… you know, what the hell, right?

所以... 這到底是怎麼回事？

These agencies are both part of the same federal government; what are they doing keeping secrets from each other?

這些機構都是同一聯邦政府的一部分； 他們為什麼相互間要保守秘密？

Well, it sounds like it's time for another exciting episode of "That Seems Bad. How Did That Happen? Subtitle: Let's Learn Facts That Undermine Our Faith In The Executive Branch Of The American Government!"

嗯，聽起來是時候播放另一集令人興奮的《這看起來很糟糕。這是怎麼發生的？副標題：讓我們了解破壞我們對美國政府行政部門信心的事實！》

Here's the thing: that story wasn't the first time that the CIA kept secrets from the FBI, and it certainly wasn't the last.

事情是這樣的：這個故事並不是CIA局第一次向FBI保守秘密，當然也不是最後一次。

They failed to work together on the JFK assassination, Watergate, the Wen Ho Lee investigations—all the hits.

他們未能在甘迺迪遇刺事件、水門事件、李文和調查等所有熱門事件上合作。

But to understand why, we need to cover a little bit of history.

但要理解其中的原因，我們需要了解一些歷史。

First, there was light.

首先有了光。

Next, America writes the constitution.

接下來，美國製定了憲法。

Then they write an amendment.

然後他們再寫修正法案。

Then they write two more amendments, and then finally the fourth time they write the fourth amendment,

然後他們又寫了兩份修正法案，最後第四次寫了第四份修正法案，

which says "we can't break into your house and look at your stuff to see if you're being bad, which is the only way for us to spy on you because it's 1791 and no one has invented electricity yet."

上面寫著「我們不能闖入你的房子，查看你的東西，看看你是否在做壞事，這是我們監視你的唯一方法，因為現在是 1791 年，還沒有人發明電。」

Then someone invents electricity, and then someone else invents the telegraph, and then bad people use it to say "we're being bad" to each other from far away, and then the government invents wiretapping.

然後有人發明了電，然後有人發明了電報，然後壞人用它從遠處互相說「我們很壞」，然後政府發明了竊聽。

"Hey, what the hell," says everyone. "You can"t do that."

大家說：「嘿，搞什麼？你不能那樣做。」

"Yes we can," says the government. "That wire isn't in your home."

政府說：「我們可以。那根電線不在你家。」

"Yes they can," says the Supreme Court, "America #1."

最高法院說：「是的，他們可以。美國第一。」

And now everyone's really mad, so it's time to pass some laws.

現在大家都很生氣，所以是時候通過一些法律了。

Specifically, this law and this law.

特別是這條法律和這條法律。

The first law—"Title III"—defined how the government could collect information on people within the US: the sort of surveillance that's done by the FBI.

第一條法律——「第三章」——定義了政府如何收集美國境內人員的資訊：由FBI進行的那種監視。

The second law—"FISA"—defined how the government could collect information on people outside the US: that's the CIA's jam.

第二條法律——《外國情報監視法》——定義了政府如何收集美國境外人士的資訊：這就是CIA的職責。

So now there are two kinds of warrants you can get to spy on someone—a Title III warrant or a FISA warrant—but here's where things get tricky:

現在，你可以透過兩種搜索令來監視某人——Title III 搜查令或 FISA 搜查令——但事情就變得棘手了：

both of them have completely different requirements, standards, and levels of secrecy.

這兩種搜查令有完全不同的要求、標準和保密等級。

Now, I'm not going to make you read through the hundreds of pages of relevant statutes here—that's what my writers are for—but I'll give you the general vibe:

我不會讓你閱讀這裡數百頁的相關法​​規——這就是我請寫手的目的——但我會給你一個總體的感覺：

the FBI has to do a library of paperwork anytime they take a photo of someone, and the CIA is not bound by worldly laws and are more or less sanctioned to kill God.

FBI每次拍攝某人的照片時都必須做大量的文書工作，而CIA不受世俗法律的約束，並且或多或少地被批准殺死上帝。

There is a reason for this, and it comes down to the fundamental kind of information each agency collects.

這是有原因的，這取決於每個機構收集的基本資訊類型。

At the end of the day, the FBI is a law enforcement agency.

歸根結底，FBI是一個執法機構。

They're collecting information to bring to court in order to get criminal prosecutions,

他們收集資訊並提交法庭以便提起刑事訴訟，

which means that in addition to not violating peoples' 4th amendment rights, they also need their information to be verifiable, well-sourced, and ultimately hold up in court.

這意味著，除了不侵犯人們的第四修正案權利之外，他們還需要他們的資訊是可驗證的、來源良好的，並最終在法庭上得到支持。

The CIA, on the other hand, can' actually enforce laws at all.

另一方面，中央情報局其實根本無法執行法律。

They just collect information on things that might end up being a problem for the United States, like Chile being a democracy or JFK's head being in one piece.

他們只是收集可能最終給美國帶來問題的事情的信息，例如智利是一個民主國家，或者甘迺迪的頭顱已成為一片。

The standard for what their information is and how they obtained it is way lower, because it's not being used as hard evidence in court… and they want to keep it that way.

他們的資訊是什麼以及如何獲取這些資訊的標準要低得多，因為這些資訊沒有在法庭上用作確鑿的證據……而且他們希望保持這種狀態。

How do we know that?

我們怎麼知道這一點？

Bam.

Bam。

Declassified internal Justice Department memo.

解密的司法部內部備忘錄。

I didn't read it, but you know who did?

我沒讀，但你知道誰讀了嗎？

Whatever my writer's name is.

我的某一位寫手。

Here's the deal.

事情是這樣的，

Basically, after these two laws were passed,

基本上，這兩條法律通過後，

the Justice Department started getting really sweaty because they realized that FISA kind of just looked like a way for the government to do illegal wiretapping by saying something was a foreign intelligence investigation when it wasn't — which they were, by the way, definitely doing — so they decided to put up a wall between the CIA and US law enforcement.

司法部開始變得非常汗流浹背，因為他們意識到FISA 看起來像是政府進行非法竊聽的一種方式，通過說某件事是外國情報調查，而事實並非如此——順便說一句，他們確實在這樣做——所以他們決定在中央情報局和美國執法部門之間築起一道牆。

If the CIA wanted to hand over information to the FBI, they would have to get approval from the Attorney General and follow a whole new set of rules, which they decided to do… almost never.

如果CIA想要將資訊移交給FBI，他們必須獲得司法部長的批准並遵循一套全新的規則，而他們決定這樣做......幾乎從不這樣做。

So then 9/11 happened, obviously, and everyone got really mad at the CIA, and there were a bunch of hearings, and ultimately they settled on changing exactly one word, which was "the."

顯然，911 事件發生了，每個人都對CIA感到非常生氣，舉行了一系列聽證會，最終他們決定更改一個詞，那就是「the」。

Did that fix the problem?

問題解決了嗎？

I don't know, maybe, I guess we'll find out the next time they fail to stop us from all getting killed.

我不知道，也許，我想下次他們沒能阻止我們所有人被殺時我們就會知道了。