FLE

Local agencies' use of U.S. security aid questioned

Arizona public safety agencies have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grant money on equipment they are not certified to use or to pay for projects with only a tenuous link to homeland security. With little initial guidance and flush with money after the Sept. 11 attacks, police and fire departments statewide shored up budget shortfalls and bought things like ATVs, Q-Tips and $50,000 worth of binoculars with nearly $178 million in Homeland Security Department grants. Despite what one small-town official described as a spending "frenzy," many local officials managed to put the money toward security priorities: shoring up communications, buying better protective gear for police and firefighters and purchasing mobile command centers for emergencies. But an Arizona Republic review of thousand of pages of records and receipts found that some local governments made many questionable purchases under the guise of homeland security, including $38 leather wallets for all Capitol Police officers and a $47 hat badge for the police chief. Many small cities and towns that are unlikely targets for a terrorist attack received disproportionate amounts of money, often more per capita than Phoenix, Tucson or Mesa. Consider:....

Cheney Pushed U.S. to Widen Eavesdropping

In the weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney and his top legal adviser argued that the National Security Agency should intercept purely domestic telephone calls and e-mail messages without warrants in the hunt for terrorists, according to two senior intelligence officials. But N.S.A. lawyers, trained in the agency's strict rules against domestic spying and reluctant to approve any eavesdropping without warrants, insisted that it should be limited to communications into and out of the country, said the officials, who were granted anonymity to discuss the debate inside the Bush administration late in 2001. The N.S.A.'s position ultimately prevailed. But just how Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the agency at the time, designed the program, persuaded wary N.S.A. officers to accept it and sold the White House on its limits is not yet clear. By several accounts, including those of the two officials, General Hayden, a 61-year-old Air Force officer who left the agency last year to become principal deputy director of national intelligence, was the man in the middle as President Bush demanded that intelligence agencies act urgently to stop future attacks. On one side was a strong-willed vice president and his longtime legal adviser, David S. Addington, who believed that the Constitution permitted spy agencies to take sweeping measures to defend the country. Later, Mr. Cheney would personally arrange tightly controlled briefings on the program for select members of Congress. On the other side were some lawyers and officials at the largest American intelligence agency, which was battered by eavesdropping scandals in the 1970's and has since wielded its powerful technology with extreme care to avoid accusations of spying on Americans....

Telephone Records are just the Tip of NSA's Iceberg

The National Security Agency and other U.S. government organizations have developed hundreds of software programs and analytic tools to "harvest" intelligence, and they've created dozens of gigantic databases designed to discover potential terrorist activity both inside the United States and overseas. These cutting edge tools -- some highly classified because of their functions and capabilities -- continually process hundreds of billions of what are called "structured" data records, including telephone call records and e-mail headers contained in information "feeds" that have been established to flow into the intelligence agencies. The multi-billion dollar program, which began before 9/11 but has been accelerated since then. Well over 100 government contractors have participated, including both small boutique companies whose products include commercial off-the-shelf software and some of the largest defense contractors, who have developed specialized software and tools exclusively for government use. USA Today provided a small window into this massive intelligence community program by reporting yesterday that the NSA was collecting and analyzing millions of telephone call records. The call records are "structured data," that is, information maintained in a standardized format that can be easily analyzed by machine programs without human intervention. They're different from intercepts of actual communication between people in that they don't contain the "content" of the communications -- content that the Supreme Court has ruled is protected under the Fourth Amendment. You can think of call records as what's outside the envelope, as opposed to what's on the inside. Once collected, the call records and other non-content communication are being churned through a mind boggling network of software and data mining tools to extract intelligence. And this NSA dominated program of ingestion, digestion, and distribution of potential intelligence raises profound questions about the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. Although there is no evidence that the harvesting programs have been involved in illegal activity or have been abused to reach into the lives of innocent Americans, their sheer scope, the number of "transactions" being tracked, raises questions as to whether an all-seeing domestic surveillance system isn't slowly being established, one that in just a few years time will be able to reveal the interactions of any targeted individual in near real time....

Gathering data may not violate privacy rights, but it could be illegal

The U.S. government's secret collection of Americans' phone records may not breach the Fourth Amendment's privacy guarantee, legal analysts said Thursday, but it could violate federal surveillance and telecommunication laws. More broadly, USA TODAY's report about the National Security Agency's deal with three major phone companies fed a debate over whether the Bush administration is going too far — and setting dangerous precedents — in trying to protect the nation from terrorism. "This may well be another example where the Bush administration, in secret, decided to bypass the courts and contravene federal law," said Georgetown University law professor David Cole. The NSA apparently has not collected the actual content of the phone conversations, just the numbers dialed. That distinction is key in determining whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable government searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn a legal line between collecting phone numbers and routing information, and obtaining the content of phone calls. In a ruling in 1979, the court said in Smith v. Maryland that a phone company's installation, at police request, of a device to record numbers dialed at a home did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment might not be at issue, but legal analysts said the NSA's collection of phone records could be legally vulnerable under federal intelligence-gathering and communication laws. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted in 1978, requires the government to go before a special court and obtain a warrant for electronic surveillance related to international espionage and terrorism. The statute defines the covered communication to include any information about the identity of the parties. A question now is whether that might include the phone numbers someone calls. That law and another criminal statute that requires warrants when authorities seek devices that record numbers dialed on a telephone could prohibit the NSA deal with the telecommunication companies. Cole said such laws generally were aimed at individuals or specific crime networks, rather than massive collections of data....

The Datamining Scare

Let's start by debunking Ms. Cauley's piece of journalistic sleight of hand. President Bush never suggested that domestic call "records" were private. He has said actual warrantless surveillance was restricted to conversations that involved an overseas party: "The government does not listen [our emphasis] to domestic phone calls without court approval." Datamining and wiretapping are not the same thing. So much for the "Bush lied" angle to this story. Yes, Mr. Bush could have volunteered the larger "datamining" details at the time. But no President is obliged to divulge every secret program, especially one central to war-fighting. Had Mr. Bush done so, we doubt Democrats and the press corps would have sat back and said OK, thanks, let's move on--not when they see his poll numbers and sense a chance to take back Congress this autumn. And once it's clear that telephone records are all we're talking about here, the rest of this alleged scandal melts away. Nobody has suggested one single call has been listened to as part of the program reported this week by USA Today. Rather, the datamining appears to keep track, after the fact, of most calls placed to and from a great many phone numbers in the U.S. In other words, the scary government database contains the same information you see on your monthly phone bill--slightly less, in fact, since names aren't attached to numbers and never will be unless government computers detect activity suspicious enough to warrant some being singled out of billions of others. And what might the government do with these records? Well, it might use them to break up a suspected terror plot--presumably after requesting a surveillance warrant for any future domestic calls it actually wants to listen to (nobody has suggested otherwise). As important, the database will enable us to respond much more effectively to the next terrorist attack. Once the ringleader or leaders are identified, this information will make it much easier to track down any remaining comrades and prevent them from committing future crimes. In short, the database is utterly non-invasive in itself and merely provides information for law enforcement to use, with warrants whenever necessary....

Mining data to nab terrorists: fair?

What can the United States government really glean from the phone-call histories - records of who called whom, when, and for how long - of millions of Americans? After all, it's the same information that has long been available to authorities armed with a subpoena, though not sought en masse until after the 9/11 terror attacks. Its value, say computer experts and others, is that it can be used to identify a "social network" of interconnected people - including, perhaps, would-be terrorists. "From phone records you can learn who are my friends - and who their friends are - what services I use, where I shop," says Johannes Gehrke, a computer scientist at Cornell University who has written search algorithms for government analysis programs. "Our social interactions leave a digital trail. [Phone-record analysis] is government learning about human behavior from analyzing that trail." Moreover, they assert, phone records are just one part of a much larger government effort to analyze the digital minutiae of American life in the hope of uncovering terrorist networks buried within it. Potentially invasive, such counterterror activity aims to build databases that can be cross-referenced in the hope of matching patterns, relationships, and activities that bear investigating, experts say. "You should presume that phone numbers are being collated with Internet records, credit-card records, everything," says Bruce Schneier, a security technologist with Counterpane Internet Security in Mountain View, Calif. Cross-indexing phone records can reveal a social profile of friends and acquaintances and a geographic profile. Each individual in that chain might then be cross-indexed against his or her retail purchases, credit history, e-mail, medical records, airline reservations, Social Security number, fingerprints - anything that can be digitized and stored in databases, and assuming that the government has access to them. Such activity is potentially invasive, many experts acknowledge, but will it work?....

Newsweek Poll: Americans Wary of NSA Spying

Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism. President Bush tried to reassure the public this week that its privacy is “fiercely protected,” and that “we’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans.” Nonetheless, Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate. According to the Newsweek poll, 73 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of Republicans think the NSA’s program is overly intrusive. Details of the surveillance efforts were first reported on Wednesday by USA Today....

Spy Agency Watching Americans From Space

A little-known spy agency that analyzes imagery taken from the skies has been spending significantly more time watching U.S. soil. In an era when other intelligence agencies try to hide those operations, the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that domestic mission. He said the work the agency did after hurricanes Rita and Katrina was the best he'd seen an intelligence agency do in his 42 years in the spy business. "This was kind of a direct payback to the taxpayers for the investment made in this agency over the years, even though in its original design it was intended for foreign intelligence purposes," Clapper said in a Thursday interview with The Associated Press. Geospatial intelligence is the science of combining imagery, such as satellite pictures, to physically depict features or activities happening anywhere on the planet. A part of the Defense Department, the NGA usually operates unnoticed to provide information on nuclear sites, terror camps, troop movements or natural disasters. After last year's hurricanes, the agency had an unusually public face. It set up mobile command centers that sprung out of the backs of Humvees and provided imagery for rescuers and hurricane victims who wanted to know the condition of their homes. Victims would provide their street address and the NGA would provide a satellite photo of their property. In one way or another, some 900 agency officials were involved. Spy agencies historically avoided domestic operations out of concern for Pentagon regulations and Reagan-era executive order, known as 12333, that restricted intelligence collection on American citizens and companies. Its budget, like all intelligence agencies, is classified....

U.S. Argues to Block Suit Against CIA

The government urged a federal judge on Friday to block a lawsuit filed by a German national who says he was illegally held in a CIA-run prison in Afghanistan for four months and tortured. U.S. Attorney R. Joseph Sher said government secrets could be exposed if Khaled al-Masri were allowed to proceed with his lawsuit. "Disclosure of information in the case would jeopardize national security," Sher said during a hearing in which he asked the judge to dismiss the case. Citing the harm he said public disclosure of any information regarding the case could do, Sher said, "We cannot and will not confirm or deny the allegations or diplomatic contact with foreign governments." U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis said he will issue a ruling as soon as possible on whether the case will proceed. The lawsuit was filed against former CIA Director George Tenet and 10 unidentified CIA employees. While the Central Intelligence Agency was not named as a defendant, the agency intervened to uphold its state secret privilege. Al-Masri said he was taken into custody after being mistaken for an associate of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers. He said Macedonian authorities arrested him when he crossed the border on New Year's Eve 2003 and turned him over to the CIA after three weeks. He said he was then flown to Afghanistan where he was "dragged off the plane and thrown into the trunk of a car" and beaten by his captors. He was held at a CIA-run facility known as the "Salt Pit," an abandoned brick factory north of the Kabul business district used for detention of high-level terror suspects, al-Masri says. After Tenet was notified that this was a case of mistaken identity, al-Masri was held for two more months, his lawsuit alleges. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other State Department officials have declined to address the al-Masri case. However, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the United States has acknowledged making a mistake in his arrest....

Bush to Propose Guard Troops for Border

President Bush will call for thousands of National Guard troops to be deployed along the Mexico border in support of patrols aimed at keeping out illegal immigrants, White House officials said Sunday on the eve of an Oval Office address announcing the plan. White House aides worked into the night Sunday to iron out details of the proposal and allay concerns among lawmakers that using troops to man the border would further burden an overextended military. Two White House officials said Bush would propose using troops as a stopgap measure while the Border Patrol builds up its resources. The troops would play a supportive role to Border Patrol agents, who would maintain primary responsibility for physically guarding the border. The officials spoke on a condition of anonymity before the address Monday at 8 p.m. EDT. The officials would not say how many troops Bush wanted to use, except that it would be in the thousands but less than an estimate of as many as 10,000 being discussed at the Pentagon....

Mexican president calls President Bush about worries over border plan

Mexican President Vicente Fox telephoned President Bush on Sunday to express his concern about what he called the possibility of a “militarized” border between the two nations. According to Fox's office, Bush told his Mexican counterpart he was considering sending the National Guard to the border but said this did not constitute a militarization. Bush “is analyzing the administrative and logistical support of part of the National Guard, not the Army, to help police on the border,” Fox's office said. The Mexican news release said Bush and Fox agreed that a comprehensive immigration reform is needed in the United States. “In the conversation, President Bush reiterated his conviction that the migration issue can only be resolved with an integral and comprehensive reform,” the release said....

Border troops would be temporary, US tells Mexico

U.S. President George W. Bush assured Mexican President Vicente Fox on Sunday he did not intend to militarize their countries' mutual border, but was considering sending National Guard troops there to temporarily support border control efforts. "The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border, but support of border patrol capabilities on a temporary basis by National Guard personnel," White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said, describing a telephone conversation between Bush and his Mexican counterpart. Fox "reached out" to Bush on Sunday to relay his concerns about the plan that is under consideration, Tamburri said....

Backlog At Borders, Cracks in The System

Beefed-up enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border since Sept. 11, 2001, has substantially increased the number of arrests of illegal immigrants, but tens of thousands of captured non-Mexicans continue to be released into the United States because there is no place to hold them, according to experts and immigration officials. The vast majority simply slip away inside the country after being issued "Notices to Appear" for a deportation hearing -- documents known to Border Patrol agents as "Notices to Disappear." The success of border crossers who stay in the United States through this "catch-and-release" process has encouraged others who hope to enter the country the same way. In a dozen speeches since October, President Bush has vowed to replace catch-and-release with the "catch-and-return" of 150,000 "other than Mexican" (OTM) immigrants arrested each year. The goal is to deny court hearings to all but asylum-seekers, speed deportations and make the most of limited detention space in jails, prisons and immigration centers. But as Washington debates the overhaul of the nation's immigration laws and Bush prepares to address the nation tomorrow on border protection, the persistent catch-and-release problem is a reminder of costly and unintended consequences of past enforcement efforts. Even if authorities overcome operational and legal hurdles to curb the flow of people from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and other countries, experts say they will be addressing only a tiny sliver of the illegal immigration problem. The U.S. Border Patrol arrested nearly 1.2 million people last year -- the vast majority of them Mexicans who were promptly returned across the border -- and estimates that 500,000 others evaded capture. "What Congress has built is one of the most expensive revolving doors in the world," said Victor Cerda, former chief of staff of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Without broader changes, he said, "You're going to be here in 10 years, with another 20 million aliens." Since the founding of the Department of Homeland Security, which sought to deter illegal crossings with a show of force, arrests of non-Mexican border crossers have tripled, from 49,545 in 2003 to 155,000 in 2005. But presidents and Congress for 20 years have not shown corresponding support for detention beds, courts, inland enforcement or diplomatic and administrative changes. As a result, the spike in arrests backfired, because there was no place to put the tens of thousands of new detainees. Overwhelmed immigration courts have been unable to keep up. Nor could the Border Patrol immediately send non-Mexicans back to Mexico, which does not accept other countries' nationals, forcing the agency to house them at an annual cost of $35,000 per bed....

Smuggling game gets deadlier

The contraband that crossed the Rio Grande here was once overwhelmingly pot and cocaine. These days, the goods smuggled across are perhaps even more profitable: human cargo. As the U.S. government considers the use of military resources and troops to shore up border security, drug traffickers are increasingly building alliances – often deadly – with coyotes, cashing in on the lucrative human smuggling trade, say agents patrolling the border. That finding is widely buttressed by other U.S. intelligence agents and human rights organizations. "The human trade is so lucrative," said Michael Griego, Border Patrol agent-in-charge of this region near Fort Hancock, southeast of El Paso. "The money is there." Ramiro Cordero, another Border Patrol agent, added, "If we seize their drug loads, the smugglers lose the entire shipment. Humans represent renewable resources, so that makes them more lucrative." That is because immigrants deported to Mexico by U.S. authorities usually cross again within hours, he said. "With renewable resources, smugglers have nothing to lose." While the national debate on overhauling the country's immigration laws intensifies in Washington, the cat-and-mouse games here continue, not with once-trusted smugglers, but with ruthless drug traffickers who view violence as a way of life. The risks are higher for illegal immigrants and nearly everyone else, from local law enforcement, ranchers, armed border vigilante groups, known as Minutemen, to Border Patrol agents....