Film Review of the Movie the Breach

Breach

For a criminal investigator, analyzing key evidence is an important part in being able to establish a pattern of behavior for the suspect. The film the Breach, is discussing the Robert Hanssen case and its long-term impacts on U.S. national security. To fully understand how criminal investigators were able to catch him requires carefully examining the film. This will be accomplished by focusing on: the facts of the case, the parties involved, the victim's information, the suspects, the evidence, investigative mistakes, procedural errors, interview mistakes and the life of Robert Hanssen. Together, these different elements will highlight how a series of critical blunders led to one of the largest national security breaches in U.S. history.

The Facts of the Case

In the film, Eric O'Neal is assigned to work undercover as a clerk for Robert Hanssen. Set in the late 1990s, O'Neal's job is to keep an eye on Hanssen (who was recently called back to Washington to lead the FBI's Information Assurance division). However, beneath the surface, his superiors are concerned that he could be a double agent. This is because key U.S. assets inside critical intelligence centers (such as Russia) were disappearing. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

At the same time, Hanssen was living a lavish lifestyle that was beyond what he could afford from his salary with the FBI. This made some of the top officials, nervous that he could be a double agent. Yet, they did not have enough evidence to prove that he did anything wrong (especially given his long career). (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

O'Neil's mission is to keep Hannssen busy, while agents search his car / office and plant listening devices. At the same time, the Director (who is personally leading the investigation) orders O'Neil to take Hannsen's Palm Pilot. Yet, as he works with Hanssen, O'Neil becomes close with him and begins to have a sense of respect for his ideas. This is when he learns that Hannssen believes the only people who are promoted in the FBI are the field agents (actively involved in major investigations). Anyone who is working counter intelligence is often ignored (despite the sacrifices they are making). Hanssen was angered by this sense of disrespect and soon told O'Neal about his double life. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

However, as the investigation continues the constant amounts of isolation and the radio in his car not working (from the bugs planted earlier) makes Hanssen think that the Russians are following him. This is when he decides that he will make one final drop. While Hannsen is at the location with the sensitive information, is when he is arrested by FBI agents. After Hanssen is taken into custody, O'Neil fails to receive the promotion he was promised and becomes disillusioned. This is when he leaves the FBI for a position in private security. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

The Parties Involved.

There are several parties involved in the investigation to include: O'Neil, the FBI upper management, Hannsen and the families. These areas are used to tell the story from a much larger perspective. This is what helps to provide better insights as to the motivations of Hanseen and the significance of his arrest. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

The Victim's Information.

In this case, the victim is the U.S. government and the secrets that were sold to the Russians. This is problematic, as the FBI will use the possibility of Hannsen facing the death penalty to disclose to them what he knows and the extent of his spying activities. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

The Suspects (Known and Unknown).

The known suspects are: Hannsen and his wife. The unknown suspects are: the Russian agents, the sloppy investigators (who allowed this to continue) and officials inside of the Russian government. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

The Federal Evidence.

The evidence that was collected against Hanssen include: secret classified documents in his possession (at the actual site of a dead drop where he was arrested), his confession to O'Neil, electronic information that was collected from his computer / other mobile devices and letters written by Hanssen to his Russian handlers. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

Investigative Mistakes

The biggest mistakes during the investigation include: becoming to close (which made Hanssen suspicious) and not following the obvious signals that something is wrong (i.e. The statements made about the FBI or how he is spending money). The way the investigation could have been handled differently, is Hanssen should have been monitored more closely when key spies started disappearing. If the FBI had done and an internal investigation at this time; Hanssen would have been a likely suspect. This is because he was exhibiting signs of irregular behavior. They could then follow him and limit the overall extent of his spying related activities. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

Procedural Mistakes

The biggest procedural mistake is that they failed to act when there were reports about suspicious activity with Hanssen. Moreover, there should have been constant monitoring of his financial transactions. This will determine if he is receiving large cash payments for information by monitoring for any kind of unusual activity in his spending habits. To prevent this, there should have been a team that was watching the activities of counter espionage agents. Once they see key red flags, is the point they should have isolated Hanssen's access to information and limited his overall responsibilities. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

Interview Mistakes

The biggest interview mistake was failing to account for the fact that Hanssen knew all of the FBI's techniques. To be able to have him cooperate requires: showing Hanssen how he will lose everything and his family will suffer. This can take place by having the government seize: his home, personal possessions and anything that his family owns. Then, they should find something they can use to arrest and charge his family members with other crimes (i.e. conspiracy and accessory after the fact). This would have given investigators enough leverage to have Hanssen start talking right away and provide information about his Russian contacts. Moreover, he could have agreed to disclose everything about his espionage related activities. The fact that investigators waited, hurt their chances of receiving critical counter intelligence. This might have been used, to identify and go after his handlers inside the Russian government. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)

Information and Biographical Data on Robert Hansen.

Robert Hanssen is the son of a Chicago police officer. He originally became involved in law enforcement by joining the Chicago Police and working for Internal Affairs. During this time, his job was to investigate and prosecute corrupt police officers. After five years, is when he attended and completed the FBI Academy. Once successfully graduating, is the point that Hanssen began working in counter intelligence. However, he felt that the FBI often ignored his contributions in favor of field agents. At the same time, he was facing tremendous financial pressures at home. (Barkin, 2011, pp. 275 -- 277) ("Breach," 2010)