--- begin forwarded text
Delivered-To: clips@philodox.com
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:31:45 -0500
To: Philodox Clips List
From: "R. A. Hettinga"
Subject: [Clips] Our Domestic Intelligence Crisis
Reply-To: rah@philodox.com
Sender: clips-bounces@philodox.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/20/AR2005122001...
The Washington Post
Our Domestic Intelligence Crisis
By Richard A. Posner
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A31
We've learned that the Defense Department is deeply involved in domestic
intelligence (intelligence concerning threats to national security that
unfold on U.S. soil). The department's National Security Agency has been
conducting, outside the framework of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens within the United States.
Other Pentagon agencies, notably the one known as Counterintelligence Field
Activity (CIFA), have, as described in Walter Pincus's recent articles in
The Post, been conducting domestic intelligence on a large scale. Although
the CIFA's formal mission is to prevent attacks on military installations
in the United States, the scale of its activities suggests a broader
concern with domestic security. Other Pentagon agencies have gotten into
the domestic intelligence act, such as the Information Dominance Center,
which developed the Able Danger data-mining program.
These programs are criticized as grave threats to civil liberties. They are
not. Their significance is in flagging the existence of gaps in our
defenses against terrorism. The Defense Department is rushing to fill those
gaps, though there may be better ways.
The collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts of
personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection and
processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of their
volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search for names,
addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelligence value. This
initial sifting, far from invading privacy (a computer is not a sentient
being), keeps most private data from being read by any intelligence officer.
The data that make the cut are those that contain clues to possible threats
to national security. The only valid ground for forbidding human inspection
of such data is fear that they might be used to blackmail or otherwise
intimidate the administration's political enemies. That danger is more
remote than at any previous period of U.S. history. Because of increased
political partisanship, advances in communications technology and more
numerous and competitive media, American government has become a sieve. No
secrets concerning matters that would interest the public can be kept for
long. And the public would be far more interested to learn that public
officials were using private information about American citizens for base
political ends than to learn that we have been rough with terrorist
suspects -- a matter that was quickly exposed despite efforts at
concealment.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it difficult to conduct
surveillance of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents unless they
are suspected of being involved in terrorist or other hostile activities.
That is too restrictive. Innocent people, such as unwitting neighbors of
terrorists, may, without knowing it, have valuable counterterrorist
information. Collecting such information is of a piece with data-mining
projects such as Able Danger.
The goal of national security intelligence is to prevent a terrorist
attack, not just punish the attacker after it occurs, and the information
that enables the detection of an impending attack may be scattered around
the world in tiny bits. A much wider, finer-meshed net must be cast than
when investigating a specific crime. Many of the relevant bits may be in
the e-mails, phone conversations or banking records of U.S. citizens, some
innocent, some not so innocent. The government is entitled to those data,
but just for the limited purpose of protecting national security.
The Pentagon's rush to fill gaps in domestic intelligence reflects the
disarray in this vital yet neglected area of national security. The
principal domestic intelligence agency is the FBI, but it is primarily a
criminal investigation agency that has been struggling, so far with limited
success, to transform itself. It is having trouble keeping its eye on the
ball; an FBI official is quoted as having told the Senate that
environmental and animal rights militants pose the biggest terrorist
threats in the United States. If only that were so.
Most other nations, such as Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Israel,
many with longer histories of fighting terrorism than the United States,
have a domestic intelligence agency that is separate from its national
police force, its counterpart to the FBI. We do not. We also have no
official with sole and comprehensive responsibility for domestic
intelligence. It is no surprise that gaps in domestic intelligence are
being filled by ad hoc initiatives.
We must do better. The terrorist menace, far from receding, grows every
day. This is not only because al Qaeda likes to space its attacks, often by
many years, but also because weapons of mass destruction are becoming ever
more accessible to terrorist groups and individuals.
The writer is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and
a senior lecturer in law at the University of Chicago.
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
_______________________________________________
Clips mailing list
Clips@philodox.com
http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips
--- end forwarded text
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'