[iwar] [fc:Law.Allows.A.Domestic.Intelligence.Behemoth]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-11-04 20:51:56


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3779-1004935885-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 04 Nov 2001 20:53:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 3130 invoked by uid 510); 5 Nov 2001 04:50:31 -0000
Received: from n20.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.70) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 04:50:31 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3779-1004935885-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [10.1.4.54] by n20.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Nov 2001 04:49:49 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 5 Nov 2001 04:51:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 11461 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2001 04:51:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Nov 2001 04:51:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2001 04:51:25 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fA54puD02783 for iwar@onelist.com; Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:51:56 -0800
Message-Id: <200111050451.fA54puD02783@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 20:51:56 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Law.Allows.A.Domestic.Intelligence.Behemoth]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Law Allows A Domestic Intelligence Behemoth

By Jim McGee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 4, 2001; Page A01

Molded by wartime politics and passed last week in furious haste, the new
anti-terrorism bill lays the foundation for a domestic
intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological
prowess, according to both supporters and critics of the legislation.

Overshadowed by the public focus on new Internet surveillance and "roving
wiretaps" were numerous obscure features in the bill that will enable the
Bush administration to make fundamental changes at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and several Treasury
Department law enforcement agencies.

Known as the U.S.A. Patriot Act, the law empowers the government to shift
the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic
intelligence. In addition, the Treasury Department has been charged with
building a financial intelligence-gathering system whose data can be
accessed by the CIA.

Most significantly, the CIA will have the authority for the first time to
influence FBI surveillance operations inside the United States and to obtain
evidence gathered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps.

"We are going to have to get used to a new way of thinking," Assistant
Attorney General Michael Chertoff, who is overseeing the investigation of
the Sept. 11 attacks, said in an interview. "What we are going to have is a
Federal Bureau of Investigation that combines intelligence with effective
law enforcement."

The new law reflects how profoundly the attacks changed the nation's
thinking about the balance between domestic security and civil liberties.
The bill effectively tears down legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during
the Watergate era, when the nation was stunned by disclosures about
presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political
activists.

The overwhelming support in Congress shows that the nation's political
leadership was persuaded that intelligence-gathering can no longer be
restricted by the reforms that emerged out of a landmark 1975 Senate
investigation.

After wading through voluminous evidence of intelligence abuses, a committee
led by Sen. Frank Church warned that domestic intelligence-gathering was a
"new form of governmental power" that was unconstrained by law, often abused
by presidents and always inclined to grow.

One reform that grew out of the Church hearings was the segregation within
the FBI of the bureau's criminal investigation function and its
intelligence-gathering against foreign spies and international terrorists.

The new anti-terrorism legislation foreshadows an end to that separation by
making key changes to the law underpinning it, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

"They have had to divide the world into the intelligence side and law
enforcement," Chertoff said. The new law "should be a big step forward in
changing the culture."

FISA allows the FBI to carry out wiretaps and searches that would otherwise
be unconstitutional. Unlike regular FBI criminal wiretaps, known as Title
IIIs, the goal is to gather intelligence, not evidence. To guard against
abuse, the attorney general had to certify to a court that the "primary
purpose" of the FISA wiretap was to listen in on a specific foreign spy or
terrorist.

In negotiating the new legislation, the Bush administration asked for a
lower standard for approval ­ changing the words "primary purpose" to "a
purpose." This would allow people merely suspected of working with
terrorists or spies to be wiretapped.

The debate over this wording was one of the fiercest surrounding the new
anti-terrorism law. Senate negotiators settled on the phrase "a significant
purpose," which will still allow the Bush administration the leeway it
wants, according to Chertoff and others.

In passing the anti-terrorism law last week, congressional leaders were
leery enough of the historical precedents to insist on a "sunset provision"
that will cause the FISA amendment and other "enhanced surveillance"
features to expire unless reenacted in 2005.

On the day the bill passed, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) the Senate negotiator
of the bill, said on the Senate floor that he had reluctantly "acquiesced"
to the Bush administration's demands for anti-terrorism powers that could be
used to violate civil liberties.

"The bill enters new and uncharted territory by breaking down traditional
barriers between law enforcement and foreign intelligence," said Leahy, who
is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Leahy said he expected the Justice Department to consult with the committee
on any fundamental changes.

During the deliberations, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft characterized
the anti-terrorism bill as a package of "tools" urgently needed to combat
terrorism. The attorney general cut short his testimony before the Judiciary
Committee, then declined to attend two additional Senate hearings for closer
questioning. Ashcroft declined to be interviewed for this story by The
Washington Post.

The new law also gives the CIA unprecedented access to the most powerful
investigative weapon in the federal law enforcement's arsenal: the federal
grand jury. Grand juries have nearly unlimited power to gather evidence in
secret, including testimony, wiretap transcripts, phone records, business
records or medical records.

In the past, Rule 6(e) of the Rules of Federal Procedure required a court
order whenever prosecutors shared federal grand jury evidence with other
federal agencies. The new law permits allows the FBI to give grand jury
information to the CIA without a court order, as long as the information
concerns foreign intelligence or international terrorism. The information
can also be shared widely throughout the national security establishment.

"As long as the targets are non-Americans, they now can sweep up and
distribute, without limitation, the information they gather about
Americans," said Morton Halperin, a leading member of the civil liberties
community and co-author of a legal text on national security law.

As a legal matter, the CIA is still prohibited from exercising domestic
police powers or spying on U.S. citizens. However, its intelligence officers
will work side by side with federal agents who do have arrest and domestic
investigative authority.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
said the changes are long overdue and necessary to address the new terrorist
threat.

"We are dealing with the issue of the empowerment of the Director of Central
Intelligence," said Graham, who said he will carefully monitor how the new
powers are used.

The new counterterrorism powers given to Treasury agencies breach another
wall of the Church reforms, which consolidated domestic
intelligence-gathering inside the FBI to ensure accountability. Treasury's
expanded domestic intelligence role concerns some officials.

"I don't see how that is going to work," a senior U.S. official said. "I am
worried about it ­ I think we are getting an overreaction."

Technology is the key to harnessing the last and largest piece of the new
domestic intelligence-gathering system, the nation's 600,000 police officers
and detectives. In the new terrorism bill, Congress authorized a secure,
nationwide communications system for the sharing of terrorism-related
information with local police.

"Terrorists are a hybrid between domestic criminals and international
agents," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a strong proponent of the bill, said in
floor debate on Oct. 11. "We must lower the barriers that discourage our law
enforcement and intelligence agencies from working together to stop these
terrorists. These hybrid criminals call for new hybrid tools."

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:58 PST