SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Government agencies have been directed to monitor anyone they suspect of being a "homegrown violent extremist." (Photo: Susan Melkisethian/Flickr/cc)
Newly Obtained Pentagon Docs Raise Fresh Concerns About Warrantless Domestic Spying
Rights group warns Americans "exercising their legitimate free-expression rights" are at risk of "discriminatory" or "arbitrary" monitoring
Oct 25, 2017
Human Rights Watch is calling for a congressional inquiry into an executive order aimed at the warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens and permanent residents after obtaining new documents that raise serious and troubling concerns about the extent of such surveillance.
The human rights group used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain training materials used by the Defense Department to implement Executive Order 12333's guidance, in which agencies are directed to monitor potential "homegrown violent extremists."
A Defense Department spokesperson told HRW that such extremists "may be self-radicalized via the internet, social media, etc., and then plan or execute terrorist acts in furtherance of the ideology or goals of a foreign terrorist group," but offered no further information about criteria government agencies would use to determine potential dangerous individuals.
On its website on Wednesday, HRW raised concerns "about the methods and criteria the government may be using to define and identify 'homegrown violent extremists,' and particularly about the risk that people who are exercising their legitimate free-expression rights will be targeted for monitoring in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner."
"These documents point to just how thoroughly the public has been kept in the dark about warrantless surveillance under Executive Order 12333," said Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance and national security researcher. "Their explanations of the order suggest that the government may be carrying out monitoring that poses serious problems for human rights, and Congress should seek more information about what the intelligence agencies are doing in this respect."
The training materials note that homegrown violent extremists do not necessarily have "specific connections to foreign terrorist groups," pointing to the attackers who carried out the shootings in San Bernardino, California in 2015 and Orlando, Florida last year as examples.
As civil libertarians have long warned, the government has often used the initial cover of "targeting terrorists" to further their ability to monitor other groups.
"The government's authority to monitor people doesn't depend on their beliefs, or what the government thinks they believe, but on specific evidence that gives sufficient reason to think a criminal offense is occurring or that the person is an agent of a foreign power," St. Vincent said. "A secret determination that someone's rights should be curtailed based on undisclosed criteria is incompatible with the rule of law. The government should explain what it's doing as well as its legal basis for doing it."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Human Rights Watch is calling for a congressional inquiry into an executive order aimed at the warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens and permanent residents after obtaining new documents that raise serious and troubling concerns about the extent of such surveillance.
The human rights group used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain training materials used by the Defense Department to implement Executive Order 12333's guidance, in which agencies are directed to monitor potential "homegrown violent extremists."
A Defense Department spokesperson told HRW that such extremists "may be self-radicalized via the internet, social media, etc., and then plan or execute terrorist acts in furtherance of the ideology or goals of a foreign terrorist group," but offered no further information about criteria government agencies would use to determine potential dangerous individuals.
On its website on Wednesday, HRW raised concerns "about the methods and criteria the government may be using to define and identify 'homegrown violent extremists,' and particularly about the risk that people who are exercising their legitimate free-expression rights will be targeted for monitoring in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner."
"These documents point to just how thoroughly the public has been kept in the dark about warrantless surveillance under Executive Order 12333," said Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance and national security researcher. "Their explanations of the order suggest that the government may be carrying out monitoring that poses serious problems for human rights, and Congress should seek more information about what the intelligence agencies are doing in this respect."
The training materials note that homegrown violent extremists do not necessarily have "specific connections to foreign terrorist groups," pointing to the attackers who carried out the shootings in San Bernardino, California in 2015 and Orlando, Florida last year as examples.
As civil libertarians have long warned, the government has often used the initial cover of "targeting terrorists" to further their ability to monitor other groups.
"The government's authority to monitor people doesn't depend on their beliefs, or what the government thinks they believe, but on specific evidence that gives sufficient reason to think a criminal offense is occurring or that the person is an agent of a foreign power," St. Vincent said. "A secret determination that someone's rights should be curtailed based on undisclosed criteria is incompatible with the rule of law. The government should explain what it's doing as well as its legal basis for doing it."
Human Rights Watch is calling for a congressional inquiry into an executive order aimed at the warrantless monitoring of U.S. citizens and permanent residents after obtaining new documents that raise serious and troubling concerns about the extent of such surveillance.
The human rights group used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain training materials used by the Defense Department to implement Executive Order 12333's guidance, in which agencies are directed to monitor potential "homegrown violent extremists."
A Defense Department spokesperson told HRW that such extremists "may be self-radicalized via the internet, social media, etc., and then plan or execute terrorist acts in furtherance of the ideology or goals of a foreign terrorist group," but offered no further information about criteria government agencies would use to determine potential dangerous individuals.
On its website on Wednesday, HRW raised concerns "about the methods and criteria the government may be using to define and identify 'homegrown violent extremists,' and particularly about the risk that people who are exercising their legitimate free-expression rights will be targeted for monitoring in a discriminatory or arbitrary manner."
"These documents point to just how thoroughly the public has been kept in the dark about warrantless surveillance under Executive Order 12333," said Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance and national security researcher. "Their explanations of the order suggest that the government may be carrying out monitoring that poses serious problems for human rights, and Congress should seek more information about what the intelligence agencies are doing in this respect."
The training materials note that homegrown violent extremists do not necessarily have "specific connections to foreign terrorist groups," pointing to the attackers who carried out the shootings in San Bernardino, California in 2015 and Orlando, Florida last year as examples.
As civil libertarians have long warned, the government has often used the initial cover of "targeting terrorists" to further their ability to monitor other groups.
"The government's authority to monitor people doesn't depend on their beliefs, or what the government thinks they believe, but on specific evidence that gives sufficient reason to think a criminal offense is occurring or that the person is an agent of a foreign power," St. Vincent said. "A secret determination that someone's rights should be curtailed based on undisclosed criteria is incompatible with the rule of law. The government should explain what it's doing as well as its legal basis for doing it."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.