It's also become very clear from their response to Snowden's revelations that NSA is not going to get any closer oversight any time soon. The FBI and its partners cannot hope to maintain a comparable cloak of invulnerability. To Bruce's suggestion, I vote yea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover
Giving NSA powers (or archives) to the NSA is a really, really, really bad idea.
The court system and legal system in the US these days is a joke and a farce--just look at the number of cases that make it to trial. We can't afford to give this sort of power over to any law enforcement agency.
What's more, FBI is also a MUCH leakier boat when it comes to intel gathering, storage, analysis, and sharing. Law enforcement personnel and practice could not possibly hide the decade+ worth of mass surveillance practices from US senators, congress, and the office of the President as NSA has.
As it happens I know something about the mindset within both orgs. With FBI, eventually the truth will come out. Not so with NSA - unless another Snowden is willing to commit suicide, professionally and personally.
The FBI is charged with counterterrorism in the United States, and it needs to play that role. Any operations focused against U.S. citizens need to be subject to U.S. law, and the FBI is the best place to apply that law.
No no no a thousand times no.
One of the only saving graces about the massive surveillance from the NSA is that, I'm willing to wager, very little of it at all has made it over to where it could be used to oppress the citizens directly.
Bruce's claim that "FBI is charged with counterterrorism" means that they are also charged (along with DEA, ATFE, etc.) with the application of undue force on citizens--something we've been only somewhat spared from because of the difficulty they have in collecting information.
Turning over to them that capability--or even the just the current stockpile and archives of information!--would be a gigantic blow against freedom.