Domestic Spying Far Outpaces Terrorism Prosecutions
WASHINGTON -- The number of Americans being secretly wiretapped or having their financial and other records reviewed by the government has continued to increase as officials aggressively use powers approved after the Sept. 11 attacks. But the number of terrorism prosecutions ending up in court -- one measure of the effectiveness of such sleuthing -- has continued to decline, in some cases precipitously.
The trends, visible in new government data and a private analysis of Justice Department records, are worrisome to civil liberties groups and some legal scholars. They say it is further evidence that the government has compromised the privacy rights of ordinary citizens without much to show for it.
The emphasis on spy programs also is starting to give pause to some members of Congress who fear the government is investing too much in anti-terrorism programs at the expense of traditional crime-fighting. Other lawmakers are raising questions about how well the FBI is performing its counter-terrorism mission.
The Senate Intelligence Committee last week concluded that the bureau was far behind in making internal changes to keep the nation safe from terrorist threats. Lawmakers urged that the FBI set specific benchmarks to measure its progress and make more regular reports to Congress.
These concerns come as the Bush administration has been seeking to expand its ability to gather intelligence without prior court approval. It has asked Congress for amendments to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it clear that eavesdropping on foreign telecommunications signals routed through the U.S. does not require a warrant.
Law enforcement officials say the additional surveillance powers have been critically important in ways the public does not always see. Threats can be mitigated, they say, by deporting suspicious people or letting them know that authorities are watching them.
"The fact that the prosecutions are down doesn't mean that the utility of these investigations is down. It suggests that these investigations may be leading to other forms of prevention and protection," said Thomas Newcomb, a former Bush White House national security aide. He said there were half a dozen actions outside of the criminal courts that the government could take to snuff out potential threats, including using diplomatic or military channels.
Although legal experts say they would not necessarily expect the number of prosecutions to rise along with the stepped-up surveillance, there are few other good ways to measure how well the government is progressing in keeping the country safe.
"How does one measure the success? The short answer is we aren't in a great position to know," said Daniel Richman, a former federal prosecutor. With prosecutions declining, he said, the public is left with imperfect and possibly misleading ways to gauge progress in the Bush administration's war on terrorism -- such as the number of secret warrants the government issues or the number of agents it assigns to terrorism cases.
"These are the only tracks in the snow left by terrorism investigations, if there are no more counter-terrorism prosecutions," Richman said. "This is why, more than ever, there is a pressing need for congressional oversight, for accountability at the top of the [Justice] department, and for public confidence in the department."
Changing numbers
A recent study showed that the number of terrorism and national security cases initiated by the Justice Department in 2007 was more than 50% below 2002 levels. The nonprofit Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which obtained the data under the Freedom of Information Act, found that the number of cases brought declined 19% in the last year alone, dropping to 505 in 2007 from 624 in 2006.
By contrast, the Justice Department reported last month that the nation's spy court had granted 2,370 warrant requests by the department to search or eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and spies in the U.S. last year -- 9% more than in 2006. The number of such warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has more than doubled since the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The department also reported a sharp rise in the use of national security letters by the FBI -- from 9,254 in 2005 to 12,583 in 2006, the latest data available. The letters seek customer information from banks, Internet providers and phone companies. They have caused a stir because consumers do not have a right to know that their information is being disclosed and the letters are issued without court oversight.
The inspector general of the Justice Department has found numerous cases in which FBI agents failed to comply with rules and guidelines in issuing the letters, often gaining access to information they were not entitled to. The FBI has responded by taking a number of measures to tighten its internal procedures.
Civil liberties groups say the new data reveal a disturbing consequence of the government's post-Sept. 11 expanded surveillance capabilities.
"The number of Americans being investigated dwarfs any legitimate number of actual terrorism prosecutions, and that is extremely troubling -- for both the security and privacy of innocent Americans as well as for the squandering of resources on people who have not and never will be charged with any wrongdoing," said Lisa Graves, deputy director of the Center for National Security Studies, a Washington-based civil liberties group.
A mixed record
But Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman, said statistics on court-approved FISA applications and statistics on criminal prosecution were "apples and oranges."
"There are a variety of factors that may account for the increase in court-approved FISA applications since 9/11," he said. Boyd said he could not comment on those factors, but said, "It is important to remember that surveillance under FISA is authorized by an independent court and used carefully and judiciously to protect the country from national security threats."
Certainly, the government has pursued a number of high-profile terrorism cases of late. A U.S. sailor was convicted in March of providing support to terrorists by passing classified information regarding movements of a Navy battle group to operators of an Internet site suspected of terrorist leanings.
The record in court has been somewhat mixed, however. Federal prosecutors in Miami twice have failed to secure verdicts in the cases of six men accused of plotting to destroy Chicago's Sears Tower and several FBI offices. After two mistrials, the "Liberty City Seven" case is due in court in January.
Even some former government officials concede many intelligence investigations fail to yield evidence of a serious threat to the U.S. "Most of these threats ultimately turn out to be wrong, or maybe just the investigating makes them go away," said Washington lawyer Michael Woods, former head of the FBI national security law unit. "A lot more information is going to pass through government hands, and most of that is going to be about people who turn out to be innocent or irrelevant."
rick.schmitt@latimes.com
© 2008 The Los Angeles Times
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
35 Comments so far
Show AllYou guys need to start masking your ip's and whatnot online, and never using an email account in your real name when you post on these sorts of sites. This defeats most of the "general" mining techniques, though if they REALLY want to they can always find you.
Terrorism is real, and the best way to save our civil liberties is to make sure we don't have any more big attacks. However, this is all a moot point since it was the drug war that destroyed our fourth amendment rights, not the war on terror.
I work under the assumption that everything I /we do is monitored.
WE THE PEOPLE are main enemy and our terrorist activity consists of noticing what's going on, speaking the truth and standing up for justice.
I believe there are two major aims of all the domestic spying.
First is to find out what we are doing, what people know and are thinking, especially with peaceful and legal activities by citizens, so lists can be built and interventions of the hard or soft type can be taken. This is the re-vivification of Contelpro. Eliot Spitzer is a perfect example of this. Through general fishing around they found something useful to get rid of a ornery thorn and a potential nuisance in the case of fixed elections.
Second is to create a chilling background threat so liberals and progressives will self-censor. Everyone knows they are being watched and many of us have a skeleton or two, especially politicians.
So keep telling the truth and being difficult! If you do not stand up for justice you lose your soul bit by bit. Speaking up will embolden your fellows. A lot of people disagree with the Bush administration and their minions. The more difficult we are, the better chance we have of reversing the fascism that creeps in on little cat's feet.
Biochip implants, the ultimate in domestic espionage:
http://www.av1611.org/666/biochip.html
PRESENCE: Someone wants to know what we KNOW or suspect, and further, to check the basis for our scrutiny. I had very strong intuition about that thread, even a bit of an interior warning... and while we joke about ALL of us now being on lists, that particular thread hit a nerve with someone with much to maintain hidden.
Jim Glover must be a troll (or a cop), and I'll feed him. Protesting is not a crime. Surveillance implies criminal activity, however. Would I like being thrown in prison as you suggest. No. But ask yourself how we've come to this state where it's a possibility.
The difference between you and me, Jim, is that I have been thrown in prison for simply exercising my speech rights. It's a transformative experience. I recommend it, for you. Time for you to wake up. Ask if the party you back still backs the Constitution. It isn't hard to see by their votes that they don't. So why don't you take a stand? You have nothing to lose, but you just don't know it yet.
And our own 900 plus commentary on 911 as inside job was VERY likely checked by these SPIES on civilians, but what do civil liberties mean in an increasingly covert lock-down society?
Every time I hear or see some supine politician whom expresses sanctimonious surprise after being assured by the con artists in the White House that the slate of laws passed after 9/11 would be used for terrorism, only to be used for domestic purposes, at best should have their head examined for congenital stupidity for taking Dubya, Cheney, & Co. at their word. Considering the sleazy way they got into power, is it any surprise what they do with it once they have the keys to the kingdom? What makes it even worse was the plentiful amount of historical examples (the Reichstag fire immediately comes to mind) were there to anyone who was half-way awake in history class.
The above discussions are wildly swinging from left to right and teetering on the edge. It can all be summarized with the realization that this adminisatrtion has a collective case of low self esteem which has manifested itself into terrorism fears. In other words they have ordinary run of the mill personality disorders that need medical attention.
MiMiCcS writes; "It is very reasonable for the government to spy on it's enemies. The enemy is you of course".
The problem here is Corporations have found corporate spying to be a good bottom line tool in maintinaing monopolies, and are using the administration to do this work for them. They in turn have assisted the administration in achieving it's agenda. The Gov't. then gave out billions in no bid contracts to many corporations in a circular pattern becoming defacto extensions of one another. That's the bottom line.
SRD
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
It is very reasonable for the government to spy on it's enemies. The enemy is you of course. There is no terrorist threat, unless you consider the government to be terrorists. Since they did 9/11, or are covering up for who did it, I guess they are.
This spying on people is not about terrorism. It is being done for other purposes.
rtdrury says: "The threat to the elites is always multi-ethnic, multi-national.
Jim Glover: If Cynthia Mckinney had a chance, I would support her.
If only we support her, Cynthia Mckinney will have a chance."
Well if every so called progressive on CD supported Cynthia she would still not have enough votes to win...if every progressive in the USA supported her she still would not have a chance to win and that is a fact even if she started earlier than this late date.... Your anger at the system does not change reality of our two party system.
Third party candidates only have a chance to even count in countries that give some proportional representation to the count.
The USA is not such a country so live in fantasy-land if it makes you Happy.
If Obama wins McSame will not win any reps in congress and if McSame wins, Obama will not win any reps ...that is the system and it uses this false hope of many cynics here to make your vote not count and without any influence.
Reality makes you mad, more than Obama... you should be mad at yourselves for falling for the false hope.
Mckinney and Nader will split your votes and it will be so small that will make you even angrier...because you are being fooled by the manipulations of the system that gives you the third party choice that keeps you out of the hard ball politics of the real system... the big bad system that makes you afraid.
Now nobody here has shown that Obama is Evil but many imply he is with this mantra of "the lesser of two evils"
That is all you got a, lie calling somebody who is honest and works within reality as "Evil".
But You sure spread lots of fear and lies about Obama while giving him a chance is a lot better for most Americans than wasting their vote or helping McBush... but go ahead if you believe in what you say and nothing real can stop you.
Thoughts into action, you are good at scaring yourself but you are not goin to jail here unless your thoughts turn into actions that get you put in jail. You sound like you would be happy to fulfill you prediction, just like Arvry sounds happy if her wasted vote gets McBush in to teach us a lesson.
Nobody can end this discussion because it goes on and on as long as people live.
So vote Green and vote Nader already, they won't change a thing and they will run forever.
Better luck next time.
By the way, a camera, looking much like the one accompanying this article, was installed at the street corner where we have protested every Friday night for the last four or five years.
Hello, authorities!
Some posters here will likely ignore that it's been Democrats that have facilitated the establishment of the PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act (= torture is OK) and the rollback of habeas corpus. Maybe Dems voted for all of those things under protest (sarcasm).
For Jim Glover, and those who would embrace the ugly positions of the current Dem frontrunners (hope burns eternal), please read this fine article on less-evilism: http://www.counterpunch.org/kosko05092008.html.
Thank you. End of discussion. See you all in jail, guilty or no.
A U.S. sailor was convicted in March of providing support to terrorists by passing classified information regarding movements of a Navy battle group to operators of an Internet site suspected of terrorist leanings.
Notice that the conviction for "providing support to terrorists" does not require proof, only suspicions, of the recipients' "terrorist leanings". Welcome to 1984.
The threat to the elites is always multi-ethnic, multi-national.
Jim Glover: If Cynthia Mckinney had a chance, I would support her.
If only we support her, Cynthia Mckinney will have a chance.
The two party system has brought us Kennedy and Carter in my lifetime.
Saints, no. But with elements of decency.
Obama has a bit of decency as well.
But given the hate-affair with the democrats on CD, and the infatuation with Nader who fought against colored tp as Asia burned.....
McCain For A Secure America.
What's the difference between spin and being spun?
"It suggests that these investigations may be leading to other forms of prevention and protection," said Thomas Newcomb, a former Bush White House national security aide."
Yeah...it 'suggests' they may just be secretly snatching-up progressive-Americans, hooding/stripping-them, and flying their asses off to be tortured-elsewhere [and, 'who would know' -- or ever be held 'Accountable'?].
The classic Bush and Texas scam---We're doin' a heckuva job, but your own security prevents us from showing that that's not a complete lie....Who doesn't believe that if they HAD any genuine "successes" they'd be plastering them all over billboards?
"The emphasis on spy programs also is starting to give pause to some members of Congress who fear the government is investing too much in anti-terrorism programs at the expense of traditional crime-fighting."
"Starting to give pause"? WTF has taken them so long? Are these people living on the same planet as the rest of us?
Astonishing!
It's perfectly okay if you want to say that I'm disillusioned, Jim. I am.
As for ending the current "two-party" (actually single-party) system, it's as easy and as difficult as ending the popular endorsement of its candidates. It's not as if it were enshrined in that "gooddamn piece of paper" called the US Constitution or anything like that -- not that that would seem to pose much of an obstacle anyhow.
The system exists as it does because it's able to claim (truthfully) that it is supported by the votes of the vast majority of the electorate. That other "great democracy", the Soviet Union, made the same claim right up to the point of its dissolution. What's the difference?
__
P.S.: Given recent US vote count records and what might be inferred therefrom, one might even say that the Soviet claim was more legitimate.
__
P.P.S.: If the only choice is between McCain and someone who will merely allow the USA Incorporated to hang out an "Under New Management" sign, I'm almost inclined to favor the former as being at least a more honest road to ending the imperium.
Avey.
Thanks for your reply and opinion and if you have any ideas that will end the "two-party" system of corporatocracy"
before the next election which will be under the "two-party" system of corporatocracy" I will consider that, and won't even suggest you are "disillusioned" or need "different colored lenses in your eyeglasses".
And if McCain wins and the young folks ask you what you did to stop it, what will you say?
Jim Glover May 12th, 2008 4:49 pm -- "... than you can say, "I Told you so" but you will have too wait to say that."
Seems like hoping for the best and waiting for the worst has become the essence of the entire US "two-party" system of corporatocracy -- along with repeating the experience over and over and over again.
"... you are too cynical for my taste anyway."
Anyone who has witnessed the system in action for as many years as I have and has not become cynical (I'd call it disillusioned) to the nth degree needs different colored lenses in their eyeglasses.
Action Alert!
House Leadership Set To Fund War Into 2009 !
If you make one phone call today, let it go to your Congressional Representative asking them to oppose the House Leadership's proposal to provide $162.6 billion in new funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Amazingly this bill would not only give President Bush the money to continue the war for the rest of his term, it also includes $66 billion for FY 2009, meaning that a new President would also have a free-hand to continue the war until the following summer.
While there is an accompanying measure that calls for the beginning of troops withdrawal, there is no binding timeline, only "a goal" of removing all U.S. troops by the end of 2009.
This very important bill was introduced last Tuesday and the leadership is pressing for a vote early this week. Although the Democratic primaries have been marked by constant talk of ending the war, while constituents were looking the other way, the House leadership has been putting forth legislation that extends it. We cannot afford to wait another year before bringing this tragic project to an end.
United for Peace and Justice, Win Without War, American Friends Service Committee and other national peace organizations have issued similar alerts.
Time is important!
Please call the House switchboard at 202-224-3121, and please pass this message on to others.
Well Samson, "Abused" was my term to conservatively describe what he said on TV a few days ago when I saw him on TV and he came out strongly against unwarranted wiretapping and torture... the "abuses" was my term because I did not want to say something stronger than what he said so I was underestimating it actually...but stay tuned because he gets more outspoken as the election draws near...a positive sign because most Dems move to the right, but not Obama...
http://lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/2008/01/barack-obama-and-patriot-act.html
and http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.php
No, he is not as left or radical as you want Samson, but who has a chance to get close to what Obama has already stood for.... and really win!
If he turns out to double cross his supporters than you can say, "I Told you so" but you will have too wait to say that".
But you seem to be itching to say that.... you'll just have to wait.
Since he is against torture you can forget about the five lashes with the wet noodle too.
But please vote for Nader or Mckinneny, cause you are too cynical for my taste anyway.
With Obama, note the key phrase 'abuses of the Patriot Act'. Not the Patriot Act itself, only when its abused.
Of course, anyone with any brain knew it would be abused. The act removed all oversight and controls on the police, and it was that oversight and those controls that made even a slight attempt at preventing abuses. So, its a bit of an odd position to be against repealing an act that you know will be abused while using rhetoric that pretends to be against 'abuses of the Patriot Act'.
Anything concrete from Obama on how he would control such 'abuses'? Like say a tough law that guarantees minimum time in a federal prison for any federal officer that abused the act? Not likely. Just some rhetoric is all you'll see. Or maybe a 'commission' to study the problem, which will of course take a long time while the 'abuses' continue. Or maybe Obama will go straight to 5 lashes with a limp noodle to any federal official that 'abuses' the Patriot Act.
locust correctly stated: Anyone is capable of committing terror, so everyone is suspect.
So much for innocent until proven guilty.
And if you like the BushClinton Dynasty:
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/the-bush-clinton-dynasty/
If Cynthia Mckinney had a chance, I would support her.
You can't fool all of the sheeple all of the time cause even they know when they are gettin fleeced....
Oh the times they are a changin.
Just like Dennis, Obama has come out against the abuses of the Patriot Act.
More on Bush Clinton connections
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=240313
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/27855
http://www.againsthillary.com/2007/10/21/the-clinton-bush-money-connection-ties-that-bind/
Obviously, USA Incorporated's establishment elite are very nervous and getting more paranoid by the day. Someone should reassure them that their domestic propaganda machine is still working amongst the general US populace and that the situation at home is still operating within their phony "greatest deomcracy on earth" system parameters.
Eternal war.
There is no privacy.
Checkpoints are everywhere.
Food and fuel are going out of reach.
Gaza is starting to look better and better.
Funny thing.....this has been going on for quite some time BEFORE 9/11.
See http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/16920
We need to put our different "causes" aside and defend the Constitution at all costs. We won't be able to even TALK about the issues that are the most important to us if we continue on the path that we are for much longer.
hello this is 1984 calling. Rats anybody?
re truthmonger 1:33pm
"bush/cheney always intended on spying on us and not the so-called terrorists." exactly. their prioritites, unlike their words, are transparent to any whose powers of critical thinking haven't been turned to mush by corporate media.
as far as i'm aware, the highest-profile "terrorism conviction" (in quotes because the government's case was so full of holes) to date has been that of lynne stewart, a veteran civil-rights attorney. this was an obvious warning to the entire defense bar to back away from these cases, and had nothing to do with protecting the public.
not a single closed case among all those languishing at gitmo, abu ghraib, etc.?
QED.
bush/cheney always intended on spying on us and not the so-called terrorists. 9-11 just made it easier. Seems like the ones who cried big brother in the past are now supporting this corrupt administration.
Post Habeas Corpus it is We-The-People that are the corpses.
I have no intention of ever supporting much less voting for any Republican. These Democrats are no better in supporting this War of Terror on the American people.
This is the thing that revolutions and secessions are made of.
With the October 2006 demise of habeas corpus in the US, the number of trials and convictions relative to the volume of surveillance is irrelevant.
Habeas corpus required that if you were arrested you were entitled to 1) due process (being represented by an attorney), and 2) a trial.
Post habeas corpus, all the US Gov. needs to do is to label you an enemy combatant (they don't need proof) and you can be held indefinitely without a trial or conviction.
America's mind-set is still the 'Global War on Terror'.
US law enforcement searches for terror everywhere and forever.
Anyone is capable of committing terror, so everyone is suspect.