Trade Secrets : Is the U.S.’s most advanced surveillance system feeding economic intelligence to American businesses? 1999

No one is surprised that the United States uses sophisticated electronic spying techniques against its enemies. But Europeans are increasingly worried about allegations that the U.S. uses those same techniques to gather economic intelligence about its allies.

The most extensive claims yet came this spring in a report written for the European Parliament. The report says that the U.S.

National Security Agency, through an electronic surveillance system called Echelon, routinely tracks telephone, fax, and e-mail transmissions from around the world and passes on useful corporate intelligence to American companies.

Among the allegations: that the NSA fed information to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas enabling the companies to beat out European Airbus Industrie for a $ 6 billion contract; and that Raytheon received information that helped it win a $ 1.3 billion contract to provide radar to Brazil, edging out the French company Thomson-CSF. These claims follow previous allegations that the NSA supplied U.S. automakers with information that helped improve their competitiveness with the Japanese (see “Company Spies,” May/June 1994).

Is there truth to these allegations? The NSA is among the most secretive of U.S. intelligence agencies and won’t say much beyond the fact that its mission is “foreign signals intelligence.” The companies involved all refused to comment.

“Since the NSA’s collection capabilities are so grotesquely powerful, it’s difficult to know what’s going on over there,” says John Pike, an analyst at the watchdog group Federation of American Scientists, who has tracked the NSA for years.

This much is known: The NSA owns one of the largest collections of supercomputers in the world, and it’s an open secret–as documented in the European Parliament report–that Echelon vacuums up massive amounts of data from communications satellites and the Internet and then uses its computers to winnow it down. The system scans communications for keywords–“bomb,” for instance–that might tip off analysts to an interesting topic.

Fueling allegations of corporate espionage is the fact that defense contractors and U.S. intelligence agencies are linked extensively through business relationships. Raytheon, for instance, has large contracts to service NSA equipment, according to the European report.

Englishman Glyn Ford, the European Parliament member who initiated the study, wants the NSA to come clean about its activities in Europe. And the Europeans have some leverage on this issue, if they decide to use it. In a drive to improve surveillance, the United States is pressuring European governments to make telephone companies build eavesdropping capabilities into their new systems. But if that’s what the U.S. wants, says Ford, it’s going to have to be open about what information it’s collecting: “If we are going to leave the keys under the doormat for the United States, we want a guarantee that they’re not going to steal the family silver,” he says.

In the meantime, congressional critics have started to wonder if all that high-powered eavesdropping is limited to overseas snooping. In April, Bob Barr (R-Ga.), a member of the House Government Reform Committee, said he was worried by reports that the NSA was engaged in illicit domestic spying.

“We don’t have any direct evidence from the NSA, since they’ve refused to provide any reports, even when asked by the House Intelligence Committee,” Barr says. “But if in fact the NSA is pulling two million transmissions an hour off of these satellites, I don’t think there’s any way they have of limiting them to non-U.S. citizens.”

Last May, after the NSA stonewalled requests to discuss the issue, Congress amended the intelligence appropriations bill to require the agency to submit a report to Congress. (The bill is still in a conference committee.) And the NSA will face more questions when the Government Reform Committee holds hearings on Echelon and other surveillance programs.

“We ought to prevent any agency from the dragnet approach–where they throw out a net and drag anything in,” Barr says.

Kurt Kleiner
Mother Jones November 1, 1999

Find this story at 1 November 1999

Copyright © 2013 Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress.

We Call a Top NSA Whistleblower … And Get the REAL SCOOP on Spying

Government Tapping CONTENT, Not Just Metadata … Using Bogus “Secret Interpretation” of Patriot Act

We reported in 2008 that foreign companies have had key roles scooping up Americans’ communications for the NSA:

At least two foreign companies play key roles in processing the information.

Specifically, an Israeli company called Narus processes all of the information tapped by AT &T (AT & T taps, and gives to the NSA, copies of all phone calls it processes), and an Israeli company called Verint processes information tapped by Verizon (Verizon also taps, and gives to the NSA, all of its calls).

Business Insider notes today:

The newest information regarding the NSA domestic spying scandal raises an important question: If America’s tech giants didn’t ‘participate knowingly’ in the dragnet of electronic communication, how does the NSA get all of their data?

One theory: the NSA hired two secretive Israeli companies to wiretap the U.S. telecommunications network.

In April 2012 Wired’s James Bamford — author of the book “The Shadow Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America” — reported that two companies with extensive links to Israel’s intelligence service provided hardware and software the U.S. telecommunications network for the National Security Agency (NSA).

By doing so, this would imply, companies like Facebook and Google don’t have to explicitly provide the NSA with access to their servers because major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as AT&T and Verizon already allows the U.S. signals intelligence agency to eavesdrop on all of their data anyway.

From Bamford (emphasis ours):

“According to a former Verizon employee briefed on the program, Verint, owned by Comverse Technology, taps the communication lines at Verizon…

At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are powered by software and hardware from Narus, now owned by Boeing, a discovery made by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein in 2004.”

Klein, an engineer, discovered the “secret room” at AT&T central office in San Francisco, through which the NSA actively “vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T” through the wiretapping rooms, emphasizing that “much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic.”

NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake corroborated Klein’s assertions, testifying that while the NSA is using Israeli-made NARUS hardware to “seize and save all personal electronic communications.”

Both Verint and Narus were founded in Israel in the 1990s.

***

“Anything that comes through (an internet protocol network), we can record,” Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus, a Mountain View, California company, said. “We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their (voice over internet protocol) calls.”

With a telecom wiretap the NSA only needs companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple to passively participate while the agency to intercepts, stores, and analyzes their communication data. The indirect nature of the agreement would provide tech giants with plausible deniability.

And having a foreign contractor bug the telecom grid would mean that the NSA gained access to most of the domestic traffic flowing through the U.S. without technically doing it themselves.

This would provide the NSA, whose official mission is to spy on foreign communications, with plausible deniability regarding domestic snooping.

The reason that Business Insider is speculating about the use of private Israeli companies to thwart the law is that 2 high-ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee – Senators Wyden and Udall – have long said that the government has adopted a secret interpretation of section 215 of the Patriot Act which would shock Americans, because it provides a breathtakingly wide program of spying.

Last December, top NSA whistleblower William Binney – a 32-year NSA veteran with the title of senior technical director, who headed the agency’s global digital data gathering program (featured in a New York Times documentary, and the source for much of what we know about NSA spying) – said that the government is using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain:

Any data in any third party, like any commercial data that’s held about U.S. citizens ….

(relevant quote starts at 4:19).

I called Binney to find out what he meant.

I began by asking Binney if Business Insider’s speculation was correct. Specifically, I asked Binney if the government’s secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was that a foreign company – like Narus, for example – could vacuum up information on Americans, and then the NSA would obtain that data under the excuse of spying on foreign entities … i.e. an Israeli company.

Binney replied no … it was broader than that.

Binney explained that the government is taking the position that it can gather and use any information about American citizens living on U.S. soil if it comes from:

Any service provider … any third party … any commercial company – like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical companies – holding data about anyone, any U.S. citizen or anyone else.

I followed up to make sure I understood what Binney was saying, asking whether the government’s secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was that the government could use any information as long as it came from a private company … foreign or domestic. In other words, the government is using the antiquated, bogus legal argument that it was not using its governmental powers (called “acting under color of law” by judges), but that it was private companies just doing their thing (which the government happened to order all of the private companies to collect and fork over).

Binney confirmed that this was correct. This is what the phone company spying program and the Prism program – the government spying on big Internet companies – is based upon. Since all digital communications go through private company networks, websites or other systems, the government just demands that all of the companies turn them over.

Let’s use an analogy to understand how bogus this interpretation of the Patriot Act is. This argument is analogous to a Congressman hiring a hit man to shoot someone asking too many questions, and loaning him his gun to carry out the deed … and then later saying “I didn’t do it, it was that private citizen!” That wouldn’t pass the laugh test even at an unaccredited, web-based law school offered through a porn site.

I then asked the NSA veteran if the government’s claim that it is only spying on metadata – and not content – was correct. We have extensively documented that the government is likely recording content as well. (And the government has previously admitted to “accidentally” collecting more information on Americans than was legal, and then gagged the judges so they couldn’t disclose the nature or extent of the violations.)

Binney said that was not true; the government is gathering everything, including content.

Binney explained – as he has many times before – that the government is storing everything, and creating a searchable database … to be used whenever it wants, for any purpose it wants (even just going after someone it doesn’t like).

Binney said that former FBI counter-terrorism agent Tim Clemente is correct when he says that no digital data is safe (Clemente says that all digital communications are being recorded).

Binney gave me an idea of how powerful Narus recording systems are. There are probably 18 of them around the country, and they can each record 10 gigabytes of data – the equivalent of a million and a quarter emails with 1,000 characters each – per second.

Binney next confirmed the statement of the author of the Patriot Act – Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner – that the NSA spying programs violate the Patriot Act. After all, the Patriot Act is focused on spying on external threats … not on Americans.

Binney asked rhetorically: “How can an American court [FISA or otherwise] tell telecoms to cough up all domestic data?!”

Update: Binney sent the following clarifying email about content collection:

It’s clear to me that they are collecting most e-mail in full plus other text type data on the web.

As for phone calls, I don’t think they would record/transcribe the approximately 3 billion US-to-US calls every day. It’s more likely that they are recording and transcribing calls made by the 500,000 to 1,000,000 targets in the US and the world.

Posted on June 8, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Find this story at 8 June 2013

© 2007 – 2013 Washington’s Blog

Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room: 2006

AT&T’s central office on Folsom Street in San Francisco houses a secret room that allows the National Security Agency to monitor phone and internet traffic, according to former AT&T technician-cum-whistle-blower Mark Klein. View Slideshow

AT&T provided National Security Agency eavesdroppers with full access to its customers’ phone calls, and shunted its customers’ internet traffic to data-mining equipment installed in a secret room in its San Francisco switching center, according to a former AT&T worker cooperating in the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s lawsuit against the company.

Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician, submitted an affidavit in support of the EFF’s lawsuit this week. That class action lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco last January, alleges that AT&T violated federal and state laws by surreptitiously allowing the government to monitor phone and internet communications of AT&T customers without warrants.

On Wednesday, the EFF asked the court to issue an injunction prohibiting AT&T from continuing the alleged wiretapping, and filed a number of documents under seal, including three AT&T documents that purportedly explain how the wiretapping system works.

According to a statement released by Klein’s attorney, an NSA agent showed up at the San Francisco switching center in 2002 to interview a management-level technician for a special job. In January 2003, Klein observed a new room being built adjacent to the room housing AT&T’s #4ESS switching equipment, which is responsible for routing long distance and international calls.

“I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room,” Klein wrote. “The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room.”

Klein’s job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

“While doing my job, I learned that fiber optic cables from the secret room were tapping into the Worldnet (AT&T’s internet service) circuits by splitting off a portion of the light signal,” Klein wrote.

The split circuits included traffic from peering links connecting to other internet backbone providers, meaning that AT&T was also diverting traffic routed from its network to or from other domestic and international providers, according to Klein’s statement.

The secret room also included data-mining equipment called a Narus STA 6400, “known to be used particularly by government intelligence agencies because of its ability to sift through large amounts of data looking for preprogrammed targets,” according to Klein’s statement.

Narus, whose website touts AT&T as a client, sells software to help internet service providers and telecoms monitor and manage their networks, look for intrusions, and wiretap phone calls as mandated by federal law.

Klein said he came forward because he does not believe that the Bush administration is being truthful about the extent of its extrajudicial monitoring of Americans’ communications.

“Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA’s spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA’s charter or with FISA,” Klein’s wrote. “And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals’ phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens.”

After asking for a preview copy of the documents last week, the government did not object to the EFF filing the paper under seal, although the EFF asked the court Wednesday to make the documents public.

One of the documents is titled “Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco,” and is dated 2002. The others are allegedly a design document instructing technicians how to wire up the taps, and a document that describes the equipment installed in the secret room.

In a letter to the EFF, AT&T objected to the filing of the documents in any manner, saying that they contain sensitive trade secrets and could be “could be used to ‘hack’ into the AT&T network, compromising its integrity.”

According to court rules, AT&T has until Thursday to file a motion to keep the documents sealed. The government could also step in to the case and request that the documents not be made public, or even that the entire lawsuit be barred under the seldom-used State Secrets Privilege.

AT&T spokesman Walt Sharp declined to comment on the allegations, citing a company policy of not commenting on litigation or matters of national security, but did say that “AT&T follows all laws following requests for assistance from government authorities.”

Ryan Singel 04.07.06

Find this story at 4 July 2006

Wired.com © 2013 Condé Nast

What was the Israeli involvement in collecting U.S. communications intel for NSA?

Israeli high-tech firms Verint and Narus have had connections with U.S. companies and Israeli intelligence in the past, and ties between the countries’ intelligence agencies remain strong.

Were Israeli companies Verint and Narus the ones that collected information from the U.S. communications network for the National Security Agency?

The question arises amid controversy over revelations that the NSA has been collecting the phone records of hundreds of millions of Americans every day, creating a database through which it can learn whether terror suspects have been in contact with people in the United States. It also was disclosed this week that the NSA has been gathering all Internet usage – audio, video, photographs, emails and searches – from nine major U.S. Internet providers, including Microsoft and Google, in hopes of detecting suspicious behavior that begins overseas.

According to an article in the American technology magazine “Wired” from April 2012, two Israeli companies – which the magazine describes as having close connections to the Israeli security community – conduct bugging and wiretapping for the NSA.

Verint, which took over its parent company Comverse Technology earlier this year, is responsible for tapping the communication lines of the American telephone giant Verizon, according to a past Verizon employee sited by James Bamford in Wired. Neither Verint nor Verizon commented on the matter.

Natus, which was acquired in 2010 by the American company Boeing, supplied the software and hardware used at AT&T wiretapping rooms, according to whistleblower Mark Klein, who revealed the information in 2004. Klein, a past technician at AT&T who filed a suit against the company for spying on its customers, revealed a “secret room” in the company’s San Fransisco office, where the NSA collected data on American citizens’ telephone calls and Internet surfing.

Klein’s claims were reinforced by former NSA employee Thomas Drake who testified that the agency uses a program produced by Narus to save the personal electrical communications of AT&T customers.

Both Verint and Narus have ties to the Israeli intelligence agency and the Israel Defense Forces intelligence-gathering unit 8200. Hanan Gefen, a former commander of the 8200 unit, told Forbes magazine in 2007 that Comverse’s technology, which was formerly the parent company of Verint and merged with it this year, was directly influenced by the technology of 8200. Ori Cohen, one of the founders of Narus, told Fortune magazine in 2001 that his partners had done technology work for the Israeli intelligence.

International intel

The question of whether intelligence communities outside the United States were involved has been raised. According to The Guardian, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Britain’s intelligence agency, secretly collected intelligence information from the world’s largest Internet companies via the American program PRISM. According to a top secret document obtained by The Guardian, GCHQ had access to PRISM since 2010 and it used the information to prepare 197 intelligence reports last year. In a statement to the Guardian, GCHQ, said it “takes its obligations under the law very seriously.”

According to The Guardian, details of GCHQ’s use of PRISM are set out in a 41-page PowerPoint presentation prepared for senior NSA analysts, and describe a “snooping” operation that gave the NSA and FBI access to the systems of nine Internet giants, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and Skype.

Given the close ties between U.S. and Israeli intelligence, the question arises as to whether Israeli intelligence, including the Mossad, was party to the secret.

Obama stands by spies

At turns defensive and defiant, U.S. President Barack Obama stood by the spy programs revealed this week.

He declared Friday that his country is “going to have to make some choices” balancing privacy and security, launching a vigorous defense of formerly secret programs that sweep up an estimated 3 billion phone calls a day and amass Internet data from U.S. providers in an attempt to thwart terror attacks.

Obama also warned that it will be harder to detect threats against the United States now that the two top-secret tools to target terrorists have been so thoroughly publicized.

“Nobody is listening to your telephone calls,” Obama assured the nation after two days of reports that many found unsettling. What the government is doing, he said, is digesting phone numbers and the durations of calls, seeking links that might “identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism.” If there’s a hit, he said, “if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation.”

Tapping thwarted terror attack

While Obama said the aim of the programs is to make America safe, he offered no specifics about how the surveillance programs have done this. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., on Thursday said the phone records sweeps had thwarted a domestic terror attack, but he also didn’t offer specifics.

U.S. government sources said on Friday that the attack in question was an Islamist militant plot to bomb the New York City subway system in 2009.

Obama asserted his administration had tightened the phone records collection program since it started in the George W. Bush administration and is auditing the programs to ensure that measures to protect Americans’ privacy are heeded – part of what he called efforts to resist a mindset of “you know, `Trust me, we’re doing the right thing. We know who the bad guys are.'”

But again, he provided no details on how the program was tightened or what the audit is looking at.

Obama: 100% privacy is impossible

The furor this week has divided Congress, and led civil liberties advocates and some constitutional scholars to accuse Obama of crossing a line in the name of rooting out terror threats.

Obama, himself a constitutional lawyer, strove to calm Americans’ fears – but also remind them that Congress and the courts had signed off on the surveillance.

“I think the American people understand that there are some trade-offs involved,” Obama said when questioned by reporters at a health care event in San Jose, California.

“It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience,” he said. “We’re going to have to make some choices as a society. And what I can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our capacity to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity.”

Obama said U.S. intelligence officials are looking at phone numbers and lengths of calls – not at people’s names – and not listening in.

The two classified surveillance programs were revealed this week in newspaper reports that showed, for the first time, how deeply the National Security Agency dives into telephone and Internet data to look for security threats. The new details were first reported by The Guardian and The Washington Post, and prompted Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to take the unusual and reluctant step of acknowledging the programs’ existence.

Obama echoed intelligence experts – both inside and outside the government – who predicted that potential attackers will find other, secretive ways to communicate now that they know that their phone and Internet records may be targeted.

By TheMarker, Haaretz, The Associated Press and Reuters | Jun.08, 2013 | 12:41 PM | 17

Find this story at 8 June 2013

© Haaretz Daily Newspaper Ltd.

U.S. Collects Vast Data Trove; NSA Monitoring Includes Three Major Phone Companies, as Well as Online Activity

WASHINGTON—The National Security Agency’s monitoring of Americans includes customer records from the three major phone networks as well as emails and Web searches, and the agency also has cataloged credit-card transactions, said people familiar with the agency’s activities.

Jerry Seib explains how the far-reaching data collection conducted by the U.S. government includes phone companies in addition to Verizon, plus Internet service providers and Apple. Photo: Getty Images

The disclosure this week of an order by a secret U.S. court for Verizon Communications Inc.’s phone records set off the latest public discussion of the program. But people familiar with the NSA’s operations said the initiative also encompasses phone-call data from AT&T Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp., records from Internet-service providers and purchase information from credit-card providers.

The Obama administration says its review of complete phone records of U.S. citizens is a “necessary tool” in protecting the nation from terror threats. Is this the accepted new normal, or has the Obama administration pushed the bounds of civil liberties? Cato Institute Director of Information Policy Studies Jim Harper weighs in. Photo: Getty Images.

The agency is using its secret access to the communications of millions of Americans to target possible terrorists, said people familiar with the effort.

The NSA’s efforts have become institutionalized—yet not so well known to the public—under laws passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Most members of Congress defended them Thursday as a way to root out terrorism, but civil-liberties groups decried the program.
Vote and comment

The National Security Agency is obtaining phone records from all Verizon U.S. customers under a secret court order, according to a newspaper report and ex-officials. WSJ intelligence correspondent Siobhan Gorman joins MoneyBeat. Photo: AP.

“Everyone should just calm down and understand this isn’t anything that is brand new,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who added that the phone-data program has “worked to prevent” terrorist attacks.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said the program is lawful and that it must be renewed by the secret U.S. court every three months. She said the revelation about Verizon, reported by the London-based newspaper the Guardian, seemed to coincide with its latest renewal.
All Things D
The Laws That Make It Easy for the Government to Spy on Americans
More
What the NSA Wants to Know About You and Your Phone
Tech Companies’ Data Is Also Tapped
FISA Court in Focus
Obama’s Civil-Liberties Record Questioned
When NSA Calls, Companies Answer
Mixed Reactions on Hill
Lawmakers Push Holder for Briefing on Phone Records | More Reaction
Verizon Says Must Comply with Data Requests
Government Is Tracking Verizon Calls
NSA’s Domestic Spying Grows as Agency Sweeps Up Data (3/10/2008)
NSA Exceeds Legal Limits in Eavesdropping Program (4/16/2009)
U.S. Plans ‘Perfect Citizen’ Cyber Shield for Utilities, Companies (7/8/2010)
NSA Activities Violated Fourth Amendment Rights, Letter Discloses (7/20/2012)

Civil-liberties advocates slammed the NSA’s actions. “The most recent surveillance program is breathtaking. It shows absolutely no effort to narrow or tailor the surveillance of citizens,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law expert at George Washington University.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration acknowledged Thursday a secret NSA program dubbed Prism, which a senior administration official said targets only foreigners and was authorized under U.S. surveillance law. The Washington Post and the Guardian reported earlier Thursday the existence of the previously undisclosed program, which was described as providing the NSA and FBI direct access to server systems operated by tech companies that include Google Inc., Apple Inc., Facebook Inc., Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Skype. The newspapers, citing what they said was an internal NSA document, said the agencies received the contents of emails, file transfers and live chats of the companies’ customers as part of their surveillance activities of foreigners whose activity online is routed through the U.S. The companies mentioned denied knowledge or participation in the program.

The arrangement with Verizon, AT&T and Sprint, the country’s three largest phone companies means, that every time the majority of Americans makes a call, NSA gets a record of the location, the number called, the time of the call and the length of the conversation, according to people familiar with the matter. The practice, which evolved out of warrantless wiretapping programs begun after 2001, is now approved by all three branches of the U.S. government.

AT&T has 107.3 million wireless customers and 31.2 million landline customers. Verizon has 98.9 million wireless customers and 22.2 million landline customers while Sprint has 55 million customers in total.

NSA also obtains access to data from Internet service providers on Internet use such as data about email or website visits, several former officials said. NSA has established similar relationships with credit-card companies, three former officials said.

It couldn’t be determined if any of the Internet or credit-card arrangements are ongoing, as are the phone company efforts, or one-shot collection efforts. The credit-card firms, phone companies and NSA declined to comment for this article.
From the Archives

More
Video: U.S. Data Gathering Highlights Carriers’ Balancing Act
Video: U.S. Tracks Verizon Calls: A Lawyer’s Take

Though extensive, the data collection effort doesn’t entail monitoring the content of emails or what is said in phone calls, said people familiar with the matter. Investigators gain access to so-called metadata, telling them who is communicating, through what medium, when, and where they are located.

But the disconnect between the program’s supporters and detractors underscored the difficulty Congress has had navigating new technology, national security and privacy.

The Obama administration, which inherited and embraced the program from the George W. Bush administration, moved Thursday to forcefully defend it. White House spokesman Josh Earnest called it “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terror threats.”

But Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), said he has warned about the breadth of the program for years, but only obliquely because of classification restrictions.

“When law-abiding Americans call their friends, who they call, when they call, and where they call from is private information,” he said. “Collecting this data about every single phone call that every American makes every day would be a massive invasion of Americans’ privacy.”

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, phone records were collected without a court order as a component of the Bush-era warrantless surveillance program authorized by the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which permitted the collection of business records, former officials said.

The ad hoc nature of the NSA program changed after the Bush administration came under criticism for its handling of a separate, warrantless NSA eavesdropping program.

President Bush acknowledged its existence in late 2005, calling it the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP.

When Democrats retook control of Congress in 2006, promising to investigate the administration’s counterterrorism policies, Bush administration officials moved to formalize court oversight of the NSA programs, according to former U.S. officials.

Congress in 2006 also made changes to the Patriot Act that made it easier for the government to collect phone-subscriber data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Those changes helped the NSA collection program become institutionalized, rather than one conducted only under the authority of the president, said people familiar with the program.

Along with the TSP, the NSA collection of phone company customer data was put under the jurisdiction of a secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to officials.

David Kris, a former top national security lawyer at the Justice Department, told a congressional hearing in 2009 that the government first used the so-called business records authority in 2004.

At the time he was urging the reauthorization of the business-records provisions, known as Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which Congress later approved.

The phone records allow investigators to establish a database used to run queries when there is “reasonable, articulable suspicion” that the records are relevant and related to terrorist activity, Ms. Feinstein said Thursday.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper also issued a defense of the phone data surveillance program, saying it is governed by a “robust legal regime.” Under the court order, the data can only “be queried when there is a reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts, that the particular basis for the query is associated with a foreign terrorist organization.” When the data is searched, all information acquired is “subject to strict restrictions on handling” overseen by the Justice Department and the surveillance court, and the program is reviewed roughly every 90 days, he said. Another U.S. official said less than 1% of the records are accessed.

The database allows investigators to “map” individuals connected with that information, said Jeremy Bash, who until recently was chief of staff at the Pentagon and is a former chief counsel to the House Intelligence committee.

“We are trying to find a needle in a haystack, and this is the haystack,” Mr. Bash said, referring to the database.

Sen. Wyden on Thursday questioned whether U.S. officials have been truthful in public descriptions of the program. In March, Mr. Wyden noted, he questioned Mr. Clapper, who said the NSA did not “wittingly” collect any type of data pertaining to millions Americans. Spokesmen for Mr. Clapper didn’t respond to requests for comment.

For civil libertarians, this week’s disclosure of the court authorization for part of the NSA program could offer new avenues for challenges. Federal courts largely have rebuffed efforts that target NSA surveillance programs, in part because no one could prove the information was being collected. The government, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, has successfully used its state-secrets privilege to block such lawsuits.

Jameel Jaffer, the American Civil Liberties Union’s deputy legal director, said the fact the FISA court record has now become public could give phone-company customers standing to bring a lawsuit.

“Now we have a set of people who can show they have been monitored,” he said.

Updated June 7, 2013, 9:25 a.m. ET

By SIOBHAN GORMAN, EVAN PEREZ and JANET HOOK

—Danny Yadron and Jennifer Valentino-DeVries contributed to this article.

Find this story at 7 June 2013

 

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

NSA revelations put Booz Allen Hamilton, Carlyle Group in uncomfortable limelight

The Carlyle Group has spent years attempting to shed its image as a well-connected private equity firm leveraging Washington heavyweights in the defense sector. Instead, it nurtured a reputation as a financially sophisticated asset manager that buys and sells everything from railroads to oil refineries.

The recent disclosures involving National Security Agency surveillance on U.S. citizens by an employee of Booz Allen Hamilton, a Virginia consulting firm that is majority owned by Carlyle, has thrust two of Washington’s most prominent corporate entities uncomfortably into the limelight, bound by the thread of turning government secrets into profits.

Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden was fired Tuesday after he confessed to being the source of stories about NSA data collection programs. Federal investigators are examining how Snowden, who worked at an NSA facility in Hawaii and had also worked for the CIA, was able to gain access to sensitive information.

Carlyle declined to comment.

Booz Allen, based in Tysons Corner, has been a local fixture for years, employing thousands and providing management and consulting services to the government, particularly the defense and intelligence agencies. It even sponsored a local golf tournament — the Booz Allen Classic — between 2004 and 2006.

It also became a leader among the contractors supplying tens of thousands of intelligence analysts to the government in recent years, including technologists such as Snowden.

Those government contracts, and thousands more like them, in 2008 made Booz Allen a ripe acquisition target for Carlyle.

It paid $2.54 billion for Booz Allen as a deep recession took hold. Fearing the risks of taking on too much debt in the midst of a financial crisis, Carlyle put up 50 percent cash instead of its normal 30 percent. It borrowed the rest to buy the company, which was then privately held.

Upon the close of the deal, the less profitable international and commercial business was spun off to become Booz & Co., leaving Carlyle with a government-only company.

After the split, the new Booz Allen Hamilton established an incentive-based compensation structure that gave the remaining partners a stake in the firm’s success. In effect, said one person close to the deal who was not authorized to speak publicly, “you got to eat what you killed.”

The incentives helped spur profits.

“Everybody has a responsibility, depending on your title, to bring in a certain amount of business,” said William Loomis, managing director at financial services firm Stifel Nicolaus.

Booz Allen, which employs 24,500, had a net profit of $219 million on revenue of nearly $5.8 billion for the fiscal year ended March 31. For the same period ending in 2010, the year the company went public, the company earned $25 million on $5.1 billion in revenue.

George A. Price Jr., senior equity research analyst for aerospace, defense and government services at BB&T Capital Markets, said “they’ve got a great brand, they’ve focused over time on hiring top people, including bringing on people who have a lot of senior government experience.”

Carlyle has cashed in on the increased demand of Booz Allen’s services. As profits and revenue have grown, Booz Allen has borrowed money to pay dividends to shareholders, including Carlyle.

Carlyle collected nearly $550 million in dividends in 2009 alone. Last year, Booz Allen issued another special shareholder dividend valued at $765 million — most of which went to Carlyle investors.

Booz Allen went public in 2010, and Carlyle now owns 95.66 million shares — around 69 percent of the total shares outstanding — valued at about $1.66 billion at the current stock price.

As government contracting began to wane, Booz Allen has pursued commercial work and opened an office in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. The contractor, for instance, is marketing cybersecurity and other services to Middle Eastern companies and governments.

The moves are at least partly in response to federal budget cutting, which has taken a toll on the business.

“We consider ourselves a well-run company, and in the past year we’ve become even better in managing our business in a difficult market for government contracting,” Booz Allen spokesman James Fisher said.

Price, the analyst, said the company has seen revenue and profit declines more recently. “They’re not immune from the current environment,” he said, adding that the cuts the company has made have “blunted” the effect.

Carlyle may ultimately reap as much as $3 billion on its initial nearly $1 billion investment. In the end, Booz Allen is shaping up to be one of the firm’s biggest home runs.

By Thomas Heath and Marjorie Censer, Published: June 12

Find this story at 12 June 2013

© The Washington Post Company

Leak highlights risk of outsourcing US spy work

WASHINGTON: The explosive leak uncovering America’s vast surveillance program highlights the risks Washington takes by entrusting so much of its defense and spy work to private firms, experts said on Monday.

From analyzing intelligence to training new spies, jobs that were once performed by government employees are now carried out by paid contractors, in a dramatic shift that began in the 1990s amid budget pressures.

Edward Snowden, the 29-year-old man whose leak uncovered how spy agencies sift through phone records and Internet traffic, is among a legion of private contractors who make up nearly 30 percent of the workforce in intelligence agencies.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the use of contractors boomed, as government agencies turned to private firms in the global hunt for terror suspects, touting it as a cost-effective way to avoid a permanent increase in the number of civil servants.

As a “contractor alley” rose in the suburbs of northern Virginia outside Washington, the increasing reliance on contractors by the Pentagon and spy services has often been criticized as wasteful and possibly corrupt. But some former intelligence officers and experts warn that it also opens up the spy agencies to big security risks.

The contractors who wear a “green badge” to enter government offices may lack the ethos and discretion of career intelligence officers who wear the “blue badge,” according to John Schindler, a former analyst at the National Security Agency and counterintelligence officer. In a series of tweets, Schindler, who now teaches at the Naval War College, heaped scorn on Snowden for spilling secrets.

But he said it was not surprising the disclosure came from a “green badge” holder and suggested sensitive information technology jobs should not be contracted out. “Been telling my CI (counter intelligence) peeps for years that NSA & IC ( intelligence community) only 1 disgruntled, maladjusted IT dork away from disaster (esp IT contractor)…oh well,” he wrote.

Systems administrators are the 21st century equivalent of the Cold War-era “code clerks,” he said, as they may not hold a high rank but have access to vital information.

Most contractors are former military or intelligence officers, and America’s top spy chief, James Clapper, once worked at Booz Allen Hamilton, the same firm that employed Snowden. Another former national intelligence director, Michael McConnell, also worked at the firm before and after holding the director’s post.

Booz Allen has profited heavily from intelligence work, reportedly earning $1.3 billion or 23 percent of its total revenue from contracts with spy agencies. Former CIA director and defense secretary Robert Gates has voiced concern that too much sensitive work has been farmed out to private companies.

“You want somebody who’s really in it for a career because they’re passionate about it and because they care about the country and not just because of the money,” he told the Washington Post in 2010.

A special website lists job openings for those with security credentials, clearancejobs.com, with positions advertised such as “Intelligence Analyst 3/Targeter” for Northrop Grumman.

“The primary function of a Specialized Skills Officer is to collaborate with a team of intelligence professionals in support of HUMINT operations against priority targets,” said the notice for a workplace in McLean, Virgina.

But the threat of damaging leaks may have less to do with a dependence on contractors and more to do with a younger generation’s distrust of Washington, said James Lewis, a former senior official and cyber security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Private contracting does not in and itself pose a serious threat to keeping secrets, Lewis told AFP. “It’s a risk because of the differing attitudes of generations,” he said. “People who haven’t been in the federal service for a long time, who have this view of government shaped by the popular culture are probably more inclined to do this.”

He noted that the most extensive leak of US classified documents came not from a contractor but a low-ranking soldier in the US Army, Private Bradley Manning, who is on trial on espionage charges after admitting to handing over hundreds of thousands of secret files to the WikiLeaks website.

AFP Jun 11, 2013, 04.52AM IST

Find this story at 11 June 2013

© 2013 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.

Boundless Informant NSA data-mining tool – four key slides

The top-secret Boundless Informant tool details and maps by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 8 June 2013 20.11 BST

Find this story at 8 June 2013

Boundless Informant: the NSA’s secret tool to track global surveillance data

Revealed: The NSA’s powerful tool for cataloguing global surveillance data – including figures on US collection

The color scheme ranges from green (least subjected to surveillance) through yellow and orange to red (most surveillance). Note the ‘2007’ date in the image relates to the document from which the interactive map derives its top secret classification, not to the map itself.

The National Security Agency has developed a powerful tool for recording and analysing where its intelligence comes from, raising questions about its repeated assurances to Congress that it cannot keep track of all the surveillance it performs on American communications.

The Guardian has acquired top-secret documents about the NSA datamining tool, called Boundless Informant, that details and even maps by country the voluminous amount of information it collects from computer and telephone networks.

The focus of the internal NSA tool is on counting and categorizing the records of communications, known as metadata, rather than the content of an email or instant message.

The Boundless Informant documents show the agency collecting almost 3 billion pieces of intelligence from US computer networks over a 30-day period ending in March 2013. One document says it is designed to give NSA officials answers to questions like, “What type of coverage do we have on country X” in “near real-time by asking the SIGINT [signals intelligence] infrastructure.”

An NSA factsheet about the program, acquired by the Guardian, says: “The tool allows users to select a country on a map and view the metadata volume and select details about the collections against that country.”

Under the heading “Sample use cases”, the factsheet also states the tool shows information including: “How many records (and what type) are collected against a particular country.”

A snapshot of the Boundless Informant data, contained in a top secret NSA “global heat map” seen by the Guardian, shows that in March 2013 the agency collected 97bn pieces of intelligence from computer networks worldwide.
The heat map reveals how much data is being collected from around the world. Note the ‘2007’ date in the image relates to the document from which the interactive map derives its top secret classification, not to the map itself.

Iran was the country where the largest amount of intelligence was gathered, with more than 14bn reports in that period, followed by 13.5bn from Pakistan. Jordan, one of America’s closest Arab allies, came third with 12.7bn, Egypt fourth with 7.6bn and India fifth with 6.3bn.

The heatmap gives each nation a color code based on how extensively it is subjected to NSA surveillance. The color scheme ranges from green (least subjected to surveillance) through yellow and orange to red (most surveillance).

The disclosure of the internal Boundless Informant system comes amid a struggle between the NSA and its overseers in the Senate over whether it can track the intelligence it collects on American communications. The NSA’s position is that it is not technologically feasible to do so.

At a hearing of the Senate intelligence committee In March this year, Democratic senator Ron Wyden asked James Clapper, the director of national intelligence: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

“No sir,” replied Clapper.

Judith Emmel, an NSA spokeswoman, told the Guardian in a response to the latest disclosures: “NSA has consistently reported – including to Congress – that we do not have the ability to determine with certainty the identity or location of all communicants within a given communication. That remains the case.”

Other documents seen by the Guardian further demonstrate that the NSA does in fact break down its surveillance intercepts which could allow the agency to determine how many of them are from the US. The level of detail includes individual IP addresses.

IP address is not a perfect proxy for someone’s physical location but it is rather close, said Chris Soghoian, the principal technologist with the Speech Privacy and Technology Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “If you don’t take steps to hide it, the IP address provided by your internet provider will certainly tell you what country, state and, typically, city you are in,” Soghoian said.

That approximation has implications for the ongoing oversight battle between the intelligence agencies and Congress.

On Friday, in his first public response to the Guardian’s disclosures this week on NSA surveillance, Barack Obama said that that congressional oversight was the American peoples’ best guarantee that they were not being spied on.

“These are the folks you all vote for as your representatives in Congress and they are being fully briefed on these programs,” he said. Obama also insisted that any surveillance was “very narrowly circumscribed”.

Senators have expressed their frustration at the NSA’s refusal to supply statistics. In a letter to NSA director General Keith Alexander in October last year, senator Wyden and his Democratic colleague on the Senate intelligence committee, Mark Udall, noted that “the intelligence community has stated repeatedly that it is not possible to provide even a rough estimate of how many American communications have been collected under the Fisa Amendments Act, and has even declined to estimate the scale of this collection.”

At a congressional hearing in March last year, Alexander denied point-blank that the agency had the figures on how many Americans had their electronic communications collected or reviewed. Asked if he had the capability to get them, Alexander said: “No. No. We do not have the technical insights in the United States.” He added that “nor do we do have the equipment in the United States to actually collect that kind of information”.

Soon after, the NSA, through the inspector general of the overall US intelligence community, told the senators that making such a determination would jeopardize US intelligence operations – and might itself violate Americans’ privacy.

“All that senator Udall and I are asking for is a ballpark estimate of how many Americans have been monitored under this law, and it is disappointing that the inspectors general cannot provide it,” Wyden told Wired magazine at the time.

The documents show that the team responsible for Boundless Informant assured its bosses that the tool is on track for upgrades.

The team will “accept user requests for additional functionality or enhancements,” according to the FAQ acquired by the Guardian. “Users are also allowed to vote on which functionality or enhancements are most important to them (as well as add comments). The BOUNDLESSINFORMANT team will periodically review all requests and triage according to level of effort (Easy, Medium, Hard) and mission impact (High, Medium, Low).”

Emmel, the NSA spokeswoman, told the Guardian: “Current technology simply does not permit us to positively identify all of the persons or locations associated with a given communication (for example, it may be possible to say with certainty that a communication traversed a particular path within the internet. It is harder to know the ultimate source or destination, or more particularly the identity of the person represented by the TO:, FROM: or CC: field of an e-mail address or the abstraction of an IP address).

“Thus, we apply rigorous training and technological advancements to combine both our automated and manual (human) processes to characterize communications – ensuring protection of the privacy rights of the American people. This is not just our judgment, but that of the relevant inspectors general, who have also reported this.”

She added: “The continued publication of these allegations about highly classified issues, and other information taken out of context, makes it impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion on the merits of these programs.”

Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 June 2013 14.00 BST
Additional reporting: James Ball in New York and Spencer Ackerman in Washington

Find this story at 11 June 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Sources: NSA sucks in data from 50 companies

Analysts at the National Security Agency can now secretly access real-time user data provided by as many as 50 American companies, ranging from credit rating agencies to internet service providers, two government officials familiar with the arrangements said.

Several of the companies have provided records continuously since 2006, while others have given the agency sporadic access, these officials said. These officials disclosed the number of participating companies in order to provide context for a series of disclosures about the NSA’s domestic collection policies. The officials, contacted independently, repeatedly said that “domestic collection” does not mean that the target is based in the U.S. or is a U.S. citizen; rather, it refers only to the origin of the data.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that U.S. credit card companies had also provided customer information. The officials would not disclose the names of the companies because, they said, doing so would provide U.S. enemies with a list of companies to avoid. They declined to confirm the list of participants in an internet monitoring program revealed by the Washington Post and the Guardian, but both confirmed that the program existed.

“The idea is to create a mosaic. We get a tip. We vet it. Then we mine the data for intelligence,” one of the officials said.

In a statement, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that programs collect communications “pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, ” and “cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S person, or anyone within the United States.”

He called the leaks “reprehensible” and said the program “is among the most important” sources of “valuable” intelligence information the government takes in.

One of the officials who spoke to me said that because data types are not standardized, the NSA needs several different collection tools, of which PRISM, disclosed today by the Guardian and the Washington Post, is one. PRISM works well because it is able to handle several different types of data streams using different basic encryption methods, the person said. It is a “front end” system, or software, that allows an NSA analyst to search through the data and pull out items of significance, which are then stored in any number of databases. PRISM works with another NSA program to encrypt and remove from the analysts’ screen data that a computer or the analyst deems to be from a U.S. person who is not the subject of the investigation, the person said. A FISA order is required to continue monitoring and analyzing these datasets, although the monitoring can start before an application package is submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

From the different types of data, including their credit card purchases, the locations they sign in to the internet from, and even local police arrest logs, the NSA can track people it considers terrorism or espionage suspects in near-real time. An internet geo-location cell is on constant standby to help analysts determine where a subject logs in from. Most of the collection takes place on subjects outside the U.S, but a large chunk of the world’s relevant communication passes through American companies with servers on American soil. So the NSA taps in locally to get at targets globally.

It is not clear how the NSA interfaces with the companies. It cannot use standard law enforcement transmission channels to do, since most use data protocols that are not compatible with that hardware. Several of the companies mentioned in the Post report deny granting access to the NSA, although it is possible that they are lying, or that the NSA’s arrangements with the company are kept so tightly compartmentalized that very few people know about it. Those who do probably have security clearances and are bound by law not to reveal the arrangement.

This arrangement allows the U.S. companies to “stay out of the intelligence business,” one of the officials said. That is, the government bears the responsibility for determining what’s relevant, and the company can plausibly deny that it subjected any particular customer to unlawful government surveillance. Previously, Congressional authors of the FAA said that such a “get out of jail free” card was insisted by corporations after a wave of lawsuits revealed the extent of their cooperation with the government.

It is possible, but not likely, that the NSA clandestinely burrows into servers on American soil, without the knowledge of the company in question, although that would be illegal.

The 2008 FISA Amendments Act allow the NSA to analyze, with court orders, domestic communications of all types for counter-terrorism, counter-espionage, counter-narcotics and counter-proliferation purposes. If the agency believes that both ends of the communication, or the circle of those communicating, are wholly within the U.S., the FBI takes over. If one end of the conversation is outside the U.S., the NSA keeps control of the monitoring. An administration official said that such monitoring is subject to “extensive procedures,” but as the Washington Post reported, however, it is often very difficult to segregate U.S. citizens and residents from incidental contact.

One official likened the NSA’s collection authority to a van full of sealed boxes that are delivered to the agency. A court order, similar to the one revealed by the Guardian, permits the transfer of custody of the “boxes.” But the NSA needs something else, a specific purpose or investigation, in order to open a particular box. The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said the standard was “a reasonable, articulatable” suspicion, but did not go into details.

Legally, the government can ask companies for some of these records under a provision of the PATRIOT Act called the “business records provision.” Initially, it did so without court cognizance. Now, the FISC signs off on every request.

Armed with what amounts to a rubber stamp court order, however, the NSA can collect and store trillions of bytes of electromagnetic detritus shaken off by American citizens. In the government’s eyes, the data is simply moving from one place to another. It does not become, in the government’s eyes, relevant or protected in any way unless and until it is subject to analysis. Analysis requires that second order.

And the government insists that the rules allowing the NSA or the FBI to analyze anything relating to U.S. persons or corporations are strict, bright-line, and are regularly scrutinized to ensure that innocents don’t get caught up in the mix. The specifics, however, remain classified, as do the oversight mechanisms in place.

The wave of disclosures about the NSA programs have significantly unsettled the intelligence community.

The documents obtained by the two newspapers are marked ORCON, or originator controlled, which generally means that the agency keeps a record of every person who accesses them online and knows exactly who might have printed out or saved or accessed a copy. The NSA in particular has a good record of protecting its documents.

The scope of the least suggest to one former senior intelligence official who now works for a corporation that provides data to the NSA that several people with top-level security clearances had to be involved.

The motive, I suspect, is to punch through the brittle legal and moral foundation that modern domestic surveillance is based upon. Someone, at a very high level, or several people, may have simply found that the agency’s zeal to collect information blinded it to the real-world consequences of such a large and unending program. The minimization procedures might also be well below the threshold that most Americans would expect.

Clapper said in his statement that the disclosures about the program “risk important protections for the security of Americans.”

June 6, 2013, at 8:02 PM

Ambinder is co-author of a new book about government secrecy and surveillance, Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry.

Find this story at 6 June 2013

© 2013 THE WEEK PUBliCATIONS, INC.

NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others

A slide depicting the top-secret PRISM program.

The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims “collection directly from the servers” of major US service providers.

Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.

In a statement, Google said: “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘back door’ into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data.”

Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of Prism or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. “If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge,” one said.

An Apple spokesman said it had “never heard” of Prism.

The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.

The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US.

It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.

Disclosure of the Prism program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.

The participation of the internet companies in Prism will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.

Some of the world’s largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan “Your privacy is our priority” – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.

It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.

Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks.

The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies.

Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users’ communications under US law, but the Prism program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies’ servers. The NSA document notes the operations have “assistance of communications providers in the US”.

The revelation also supports concerns raised by several US senators during the renewal of the Fisa Amendments Act in December 2012, who warned about the scale of surveillance the law might enable, and shortcomings in the safeguards it introduces.

When the FAA was first enacted, defenders of the statute argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA’s inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the Prism program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.

A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more.

The document is recent, dating to April 2013. Such a leak is extremely rare in the history of the NSA, which prides itself on maintaining a high level of secrecy.

The Prism program allows the NSA, the world’s largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders.

With this program, the NSA is able to reach directly into the servers of the participating companies and obtain both stored communications as well as perform real-time collection on targeted users.

The presentation claims Prism was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a “home-field advantage” due to housing much of the internet’s architecture. But the presentation claimed “Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage” because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US.

“Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them,” the presentation claimed. “It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States. There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all.”

The new measures introduced in the FAA redefines “electronic surveillance” to exclude anyone “reasonably believed” to be outside the USA – a technical change which reduces the bar to initiating surveillance.

The act also gives the director of national intelligence and the attorney general power to permit obtaining intelligence information, and indemnifies internet companies against any actions arising as a result of co-operating with authorities’ requests.

In short, where previously the NSA needed individual authorisations, and confirmation that all parties were outside the USA, they now need only reasonable suspicion that one of the parties was outside the country at the time of the records were collected by the NSA.

The document also shows the FBI acts as an intermediary between other agencies and the tech companies, and stresses its reliance on the participation of US internet firms, claiming “access is 100% dependent on ISP provisioning”.

In the document, the NSA hails the Prism program as “one of the most valuable, unique and productive accesses for NSA”.

It boasts of what it calls “strong growth” in its use of the Prism program to obtain communications. The document highlights the number of obtained communications increased in 2012 by 248% for Skype – leading the notes to remark there was “exponential growth in Skype reporting; looks like the word is getting out about our capability against Skype”. There was also a 131% increase in requests for Facebook data, and 63% for Google.

The NSA document indicates that it is planning to add Dropbox as a PRISM provider. The agency also seeks, in its words, to “expand collection services from existing providers”.

The revelations echo fears raised on the Senate floor last year during the expedited debate on the renewal of the FAA powers which underpin the PRISM program, which occurred just days before the act expired.

Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware specifically warned that the secrecy surrounding the various surveillance programs meant there was no way to know if safeguards within the act were working.

“The problem is: we here in the Senate and the citizens we represent don’t know how well any of these safeguards actually work,” he said.

“The law doesn’t forbid purely domestic information from being collected. We know that at least one Fisa court has ruled that the surveillance program violated the law. Why? Those who know can’t say and average Americans can’t know.”

Other senators also raised concerns. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon attempted, without success, to find out any information on how many phone calls or emails had been intercepted under the program.

When the law was enacted, defenders of the FAA argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA’s inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the Prism program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies’ servers.

When the NSA reviews a communication it believes merits further investigation, it issues what it calls a “report”. According to the NSA, “over 2,000 Prism-based reports” are now issued every month. There were 24,005 in 2012, a 27% increase on the previous year.

In total, more than 77,000 intelligence reports have cited the PRISM program.

Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy, that it was astonishing the NSA would even ask technology companies to grant direct access to user data.

“It’s shocking enough just that the NSA is asking companies to do this,” he said. “The NSA is part of the military. The military has been granted unprecedented access to civilian communications.

“This is unprecedented militarisation of domestic communications infrastructure. That’s profoundly troubling to anyone who is concerned about that separation.”

A senior administration official said in a statement: “The Guardian and Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This law does not allow the targeting of any US citizen or of any person located within the United States.

“The program is subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. It involves extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-US persons outside the US are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about US persons.

“This program was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.

“Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats.

“The Government may only use Section 702 to acquire foreign intelligence information, which is specifically, and narrowly, defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This requirement applies across the board, regardless of the nationality of the target.”

Additional reporting by James Ball and Dominic Rushe

Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian, Friday 7 June 2013

Find this story at 7 June 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Verizon order casts spotlight on secretive U.S. surveillance court

(Reuters) – The leak of a document showing the Obama administration asked for millions of phone records has turned a spotlight anew on a secretive U.S. federal court set up 35 years ago to curb intelligence abuses.

Made up of 11 judges who serve staggered seven-year terms, it is called the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The judges’ identities are known, along with the name of the person who appoints them: the chief justice, now John Roberts.

In a departure from other courts, all of its rulings are secret and there is no adversarial system. Instead, government lawyers make a request and the judge either approves or rejects it. No other parties are present. The court approves nearly all requests, according to Justice Department data.

In an annual report to Congress that is publicly available, the department said that in 2012 the government made 212 applications for access to business records, which is the same kind of request as that made of Verizon Communications Inc in the present case.

The court denied none of the applications but amended 200 of them, the report said.

The court also oversees applications for electronic surveillance and physical searches. There were 1,856 such applications in 2012, when all were approved except for one, which the government withdrew before the court could rule.

Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act setting up the court in 1978 amid concerns about the lack of legal oversight over the intelligence community’s activities.

Activity by the U.S. intelligence community uncovered by congressional investigations included illegal mail-opening programs and the targeting of domestic protesters and political opponents by the Nixon administration.

Now, critics say, the court set up to curb misconduct is rubber-stamping drastically expanded intelligence gathering efforts started after the September 11, 2001, attacks that prompt similar concerns about infringements on civil liberties.

Government authority to obtain records was expanded further by the 2001 USA Patriot Act, which Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

‘ANY TANGIBLE THINGS’

The government cited Section 215 of the Patriot Act in making its request in the Verizon case. This section allows the government to ask the court for “any tangible things” as part of any authorized investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities.

As the Justice Department wrote in an October 2011 letter to members of Congress, the government must show, among other things, that the information sought is “relevant to an authorized national security investigation.”

At least one president has tried to sidestep the court.

President George W. Bush’s administration chose not to ask the court to approve wiretapping of calls between suspected terrorists until 2007, news accounts of the program’s existence prompted controversy. This incident led to increased concerns among civil liberties advocates that the government effectively had a green light to invade the privacy of Americans.

Among the few who know how the secret court acts are members of Congress. The Obama administration has been keen to highlight how access to orders and opinions issued by the secret court is provided to members of both parties on the intelligence committees in both houses of Congress and on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The court is comprised of sitting federal judges, appointed for life, who take on the additional responsibility for the seven years of the surveillance court term. The judges are all over the country, although several are in the Washington area.

It is not clear exactly how the chief justice chooses the judges who serve on the court. Some of the judges have a national security background while others do not, according to a source familiar with the court. Further information on how Chief Justice Roberts appoints judges was not immediately available from a U.S. Supreme Court spokeswoman.

WASHINGTON PRESENCE

The court has a physical presence in the U.S. District Court in Washington. The current presiding judge is Reggie Walton, a U.S. district judge in Washington who was appointed by Bush.

The vast majority of judges now on the court are Republican appointees.

The judge who approved the Verizon order, Roger Vinson, is a senior federal district judge in Florida. His term ended at the beginning of May. Vinson, a U.S. Navy veteran, was appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1983.

The intelligence court’s workload increased after the September 11 attacks. Between 1978 and 2001, it received 46 emergency requests. In the year after September 11, there were 113, according to a legal textbook on national security by legal experts J. Douglas Wilson and David Kris, who was head of the Justice Department’s national security division from 2009 to 2011.

A former member, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Columbia, described his experience serving in a 2002 speech in which he denied that the court was a rubber stamp.

“I ask questions. I get into the nitty gritty,” he said. “I know exactly what is going to be done and why. And my questions are answered, in every case, before I approve an application.”

By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 6, 2013 6:40pm EDT
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Philip Barbara)

Find this story at 6 June 2013

@2013 Thomson Reuters

How Congress unknowingly legalized PRISM in 2007

On Sept. 11, 2007, the National Security Agency signed up Microsoft as its first partner for PRISM, a massive domestic surveillance program whose existence was reported by the Washington Post today. That’s barely a month after Congress passed, and President George W. Bush signed, the Protect America Act.

The Bush Administration portrayed the PAA as a technical fix designed to close a gap in America’s surveillance capabilities that had been opened by a then-recent ruling of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It proved to be much more than that.

While the details are still classified, reports suggested that the FISC had ruled that it was illegal for the government to intercept communications between two foreign endpoints if the communications happened to pass through the United States. Warning that the U.S. would suddenly lose the ability to continue its surveillance of terrorists, the administration pushed the PAA through Congress in a matter of days.

In reality, the PAA represented a sweeping change to American surveillance law. Before conducting surveillance, the PAA only required executive branch officials to “certify” that there were “reasonable procedures” in place for ensuring that surveillance “concerns” persons located outside the United States and that the foreign intelligence is a “significant purpose” of the program. A single certification could cover a broad program intercepting the communications of numerous individuals. And there was no requirement for judicial review of individual surveillance targets within a “certified” program.

Civil liberties groups warned that the PAA’s vague requirements and lack of oversight would give the government a green light to seek indiscriminate access to the private communications of Americans. They predicted that the government would claim that they needed unfettered access to domestic communications to be sure they had gotten all relevant information about suspected terrorists.

It now appears that this is exactly what the government did. Today’s report suggests that the moment the PAA was the law of the land, the NSA started using it to obtain unfettered access to the servers of the nation’s leading online services. To comply with the requirement that the government not target Americans, PRISM searches are reportedly “designed to produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s ‘foreignness’” — the lowest conceivable standard. PRISM training materials reportedly instruct users that if searches happen to turn up the private information of Americans, “it’s nothing to worry about.”

The Protect America Act included a short six-month sunset provision, triggering another heated debate in the midst of the 2008 Democratic primary campaign. But that debate focused more on the past than the future. The telecom industry sought retroactive immunity for their participation in warrantless surveillance programs prior to 2007, a request Congress did not grant with the PAA.

Retroactive immunity for telecom companies dominated the 2008 debate, overshadowing the more important issue of the sweeping new powers that Congress had just granted to the executive branch. When Congress finally passed the FISA Amendments Act in July 2008, it included both immunity and a four-year extension of the government’s warrantless spying powers. But few members of Congress realized the breadth of the surveillance powers they were effectively approving.

The FISA Amandments Act was re-authorized for another five years in 2012 with little controversy. It will come up for a vote again in 2017 — though Congress could always choose to revisit it earlier.

By Timothy B. Lee, Updated: June 6, 2013

Find this story at 6 June 2013

© The Washington Post Company

NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls: 2006

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren’t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: The NSA record collection program

“It’s the largest database ever assembled in the world,” said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA’s activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency’s goal is “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency’s domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

The NSA’s domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA’s efforts to create a national call database.

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. “In other words,” Bush explained, “one end of the communication must be outside the United States.”

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers’ names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA’s domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency’s operations. “Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide,” he said. “However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law.”

The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. “There is no domestic surveillance without court approval,” said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government “are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists.” All government-sponsored intelligence activities “are carefully reviewed and monitored,” Perino said. She also noted that “all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States.”

The government is collecting “external” data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting “internals,” a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it’s been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for “social network analysis,” the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.

Carriers uniquely positioned

AT&T recently merged with SBC and kept the AT&T name. Verizon, BellSouth and AT&T are the nation’s three biggest telecommunications companies; they provide local and wireless phone service to more than 200 million customers.

The three carriers control vast networks with the latest communications technologies. They provide an array of services: local and long-distance calling, wireless and high-speed broadband, including video. Their direct access to millions of homes and businesses has them uniquely positioned to help the government keep tabs on the calling habits of Americans.

Among the big telecommunications companies, only Qwest has refused to help the NSA, the sources said. According to multiple sources, Qwest declined to participate because it was uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants.

Qwest’s refusal to participate has left the NSA with a hole in its database. Based in Denver, Qwest provides local phone service to 14 million customers in 14 states in the West and Northwest. But AT&T and Verizon also provide some services — primarily long-distance and wireless — to people who live in Qwest’s region. Therefore, they can provide the NSA with at least some access in that area.

Created by President Truman in 1952, during the Korean War, the NSA is charged with protecting the United States from foreign security threats. The agency was considered so secret that for years the government refused to even confirm its existence. Government insiders used to joke that NSA stood for “No Such Agency.”

In 1975, a congressional investigation revealed that the NSA had been intercepting, without warrants, international communications for more than 20 years at the behest of the CIA and other agencies. The spy campaign, code-named “Shamrock,” led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was designed to protect Americans from illegal eavesdropping.

Enacted in 1978, FISA lays out procedures that the U.S. government must follow to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches of people believed to be engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States. A special court, which has 11 members, is responsible for adjudicating requests under FISA.

Over the years, NSA code-cracking techniques have continued to improve along with technology. The agency today is considered expert in the practice of “data mining” — sifting through reams of information in search of patterns. Data mining is just one of many tools NSA analysts and mathematicians use to crack codes and track international communications.

Paul Butler, a former U.S. prosecutor who specialized in terrorism crimes, said FISA approval generally isn’t necessary for government data-mining operations. “FISA does not prohibit the government from doing data mining,” said Butler, now a partner with the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, D.C.

The caveat, he said, is that “personal identifiers” — such as names, Social Security numbers and street addresses — can’t be included as part of the search. “That requires an additional level of probable cause,” he said.

The usefulness of the NSA’s domestic phone-call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear. Also unclear is whether the database has been used for other purposes.

The NSA’s domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer’s calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.

Ma Bell’s bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. “No court order, no customer information — period. That’s how it was for decades,” he said.

The concern for the customer was also based on law: Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers’ calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.

The financial penalties for violating Section 222, one of many privacy reinforcements that have been added to the law over the years, can be stiff. The Federal Communications Commission, the nation’s top telecommunications regulatory agency, can levy fines of up to $130,000 per day per violation, with a cap of $1.325 million per violation. The FCC has no hard definition of “violation.” In practice, that means a single “violation” could cover one customer or 1 million.

In the case of the NSA’s international call-tracking program, Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to engage in eavesdropping without a warrant. The president and his representatives have since argued that an executive order was sufficient for the agency to proceed. Some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, disagree.

Companies approached

The NSA’s domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation’s biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their “call-detail records,” a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation’s calling habits.

The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.

With that, the NSA’s domestic program began in earnest.

AT&T, when asked about the program, replied with a comment prepared for USA TODAY: “We do not comment on matters of national security, except to say that we only assist law enforcement and government agencies charged with protecting national security in strict accordance with the law.”

In another prepared comment, BellSouth said: “BellSouth does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any governmental agency without proper legal authority.”

Verizon, the USA’s No. 2 telecommunications company behind AT&T, gave this statement: “We do not comment on national security matters, we act in full compliance with the law and we are committed to safeguarding our customers’ privacy.”

Qwest spokesman Robert Charlton said: “We can’t talk about this. It’s a classified situation.”

In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers.

Last month, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales alluded to that possibility. Appearing at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Gonzales was asked whether he thought the White House has the legal authority to monitor domestic traffic without a warrant. Gonzales’ reply: “I wouldn’t rule it out.” His comment marked the first time a Bush appointee publicly asserted that the White House might have that authority.

Similarities in programs

The domestic and international call-tracking programs have things in common, according to the sources. Both are being conducted without warrants and without the approval of the FISA court. The Bush administration has argued that FISA’s procedures are too slow in some cases. Officials, including Gonzales, also make the case that the USA Patriot Act gives them broad authority to protect the safety of the nation’s citizens.

The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would not confirm the existence of the program. In a statement, he said, “I can say generally, however, that our subcommittee has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program. … I remain convinced that the program authorized by the president is lawful and absolutely necessary to protect this nation from future attacks.”

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., declined to comment.

One company differs

One major telecommunications company declined to participate in the program: Qwest.

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest’s CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA’s assertion that Qwest didn’t need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers’ information and how that information might be used.

Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as “product” in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest’s lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest’s participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest’s patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest’s refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest’s foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest’s lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA’s explanation did little to satisfy Qwest’s lawyers. “They told (Qwest) they didn’t want to do that because FISA might not agree with them,” one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest’s suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general’s office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

In June 2002, Nacchio resigned amid allegations that he had misled investors about Qwest’s financial health. But Qwest’s legal questions about the NSA request remained.

Unable to reach agreement, Nacchio’s successor, Richard Notebaert, finally pulled the plug on the NSA talks in late 2004, the sources said.

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
Contributing: John Diamond
Posted 5/10/2006 11:16 PM ET
Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET

Find this story at 5 October 2006

Copyright 2011 USA TODAY

Confirmed: The NSA is Spying on Millions of Americans

Today, the Guardian newspaper confirmed what EFF (and many others) have long claimed: the NSA is conducting widespread, untargeted, domestic surveillance on millions of Americans. This revelation should end, once and for all, the government’s long-discredited secrecy claims about its dragnet domestic surveillance programs. It should spur Congress and the American people to make the President finally tell the truth about the government’s spying on innocent Americans.

In a report by Glenn Greenwald, the paper published an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (or FISC) that directs Verizon to provide “on an ongoing daily basis” all call records for any call “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls” and any call made “between the United States and abroad.”

In plain language: the order gave the NSA a record of every Verizon customer’s call history — every call made, the location of the phone, the time of the call, the duration of the call, and other “identifying information” for the phone and call — from April 25, 2013 (the date the order was issued) to July 19, 2013. The order does not require content or the name of any subscriber and is issued under 50 USC sec.1861, also known as section 215 of the Patriot Act.

There is no indication that this order to Verizon was unique or novel. It is very likely that business records orders like this exist for every major American telecommunication company, meaning that, if you make calls in the United States, the NSA has those records. And this has been going on for at least 7 years, and probably longer.

This type of untargeted, wholly domestic surveillance is exactly what EFF, and others, have been suing about for years. In 2006, USA Today published a story disclosing that the NSA had compiled a massive database of call records from American telecommunications companies. Our case, Jewel v. NSA, challenging the legality of the NSA’s domestic spying program, has been pending since 2008, but its predecessor, Hepting v. AT&T filed in 2006, alleged the same surveillance. In 2011, on the 10th Anniversary of the Patriot Act, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice for records about the government’s use of Section 215 – the legal authority the government was relying on to perform this type of untargeted surveillance.

But at each step of the way, the government has tried to hide the truth from the American public: in Hepting, behind telecom immunity; in Jewel, behind the state secrets privilege; in the FOIA case, by claiming the information is classified at the top secret level. In May 2011, Senator Ron Wyden, one of the few courageous voices fighting against the government’s domestic surveillance program, said this in a debate about reauthorizing Section 215:

I want to deliver a warning this afternoon: when the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry.

Today is that day. The American people have confirmed how the government has secretly interpreted Section 215. And we’re angry. It’s time to stop hiding behind legal privileges and to come clean about Section 215 and FISA. It’s time to start the national dialogue about our rights in the digital age. And it’s time to end the NSA’s unconstitutional domestic surveillance program.

June 5, 2013 | By Cindy Cohn and Mark Rumold

Find this story at 5 June 2013

A hidden world, growing beyond control (19 July 2010)

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.

These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine.

The investigation’s other findings include:

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year – a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

These are not academic issues; lack of focus, not lack of resources, was at the heart of the Fort Hood shooting that left 13 dead, as well as the Christmas Day bomb attempt thwarted not by the thousands of analysts employed to find lone terrorists but by an alert airline passenger who saw smoke coming from his seatmate.

They are also issues that greatly concern some of the people in charge of the nation’s security.

“There has been so much growth since 9/11 that getting your arms around that – not just for the CIA, for the secretary of defense – is a challenge,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in an interview with The Post last week.

In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials – called Super Users – have the ability to even know about all the department’s activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation’s most sensitive work.

“I’m not going to live long enough to be briefed on everything” was how one Super User put it. The other recounted that for his initial briefing, he was escorted into a tiny, dark room, seated at a small table and told he couldn’t take notes. Program after program began flashing on a screen, he said, until he yelled ”Stop!” in frustration.

“I wasn’t remembering any of it,” he said.

Underscoring the seriousness of these issues are the conclusions of retired Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, who was asked last year to review the method for tracking the Defense Department’s most sensitive programs. Vines, who once commanded 145,000 troops in Iraq and is familiar with complex problems, was stunned by what he discovered.

“I’m not aware of any agency with the authority, responsibility or a process in place to coordinate all these interagency and commercial activities,” he said in an interview. “The complexity of this system defies description.”

The result, he added, is that it’s impossible to tell whether the country is safer because of all this spending and all these activities. “Because it lacks a synchronizing process, it inevitably results in message dissonance, reduced effectiveness and waste,” Vines said. “We consequently can’t effectively assess whether it is making us more safe.”

The Post’s investigation is based on government documents and contracts, job descriptions, property records, corporate and social networking Web sites, additional records, and hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and corporate officials and former officials. Most requested anonymity either because they are prohibited from speaking publicly or because, they said, they feared retaliation at work for describing their concerns.

The Post’s online database of government organizations and private companies was built entirely on public records. The investigation focused on top-secret work because the amount classified at the secret level is too large to accurately track.

Today’s article describes the government’s role in this expanding enterprise. Tuesday’s article describes the government’s dependence on private contractors. Wednesday’s is a portrait of one Top Secret America community. On the Web, an extensive, searchable database built by The Post about Top Secret America is available at washingtonpost.com/topsecretamerica.

Defense Secretary Gates, in his interview with The Post, said that he does not believe the system has become too big to manage but that getting precise data is sometimes difficult. Singling out the growth of intelligence units in the Defense Department, he said he intends to review those programs for waste. “Nine years after 9/11, it makes a lot of sense to sort of take a look at this and say, ‘Okay, we’ve built tremendous capability, but do we have more than we need?’ ” he said.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, who was also interviewed by The Post last week, said he’s begun mapping out a five-year plan for his agency because the levels of spending since 9/11 are not sustainable. “Particularly with these deficits, we’re going to hit the wall. I want to be prepared for that,” he said. “Frankly, I think everyone in intelligence ought to be doing that.”

In an interview before he resigned as the director of national intelligence in May, retired Adm. Dennis C. Blair said he did not believe there was overlap and redundancy in the intelligence world. “Much of what appears to be redundancy is, in fact, providing tailored intelligence for many different customers,” he said.

Blair also expressed confidence that subordinates told him what he needed to know. “I have visibility on all the important intelligence programs across the community, and there are processes in place to ensure the different intelligence capabilities are working together where they need to,” he said.

Weeks later, as he sat in the corner of a ballroom at the Willard Hotel waiting to give a speech, he mused about The Post’s findings. “After 9/11, when we decided to attack violent extremism, we did as we so often do in this country,” he said. “The attitude was, if it’s worth doing, it’s probably worth overdoing.”

Outside a gated subdivision of mansions in McLean, a line of cars idles every weekday morning as a new day in Top Secret America gets underway. The drivers wait patiently to turn left, then crawl up a hill and around a bend to a destination that is not on any public map and not announced by any street sign.

Liberty Crossing tries hard to hide from view. But in the winter, leafless trees can’t conceal a mountain of cement and windows the size of five Wal-Mart stores stacked on top of one another rising behind a grassy berm. One step too close without the right badge, and men in black jump out of nowhere, guns at the ready.

Past the armed guards and the hydraulic steel barriers, at least 1,700 federal employees and 1,200 private contractors work at Liberty Crossing, the nickname for the two headquarters of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and its National Counterterrorism Center. The two share a police force, a canine unit and thousands of parking spaces.

Liberty Crossing is at the center of the collection of U.S. government agencies and corporate contractors that mushroomed after the 2001 attacks. But it is not nearly the biggest, the most costly or even the most secretive part of the 9/11 enterprise.

In an Arlington County office building, the lobby directory doesn’t include the Air Force’s mysteriously named XOIWS unit, but there’s a big “Welcome!” sign in the hallway greeting visitors who know to step off the elevator on the third floor. In Elkridge, Md., a clandestine program hides in a tall concrete structure fitted with false windows to look like a normal office building. In Arnold, Mo., the location is across the street from a Target and a Home Depot. In St. Petersburg, Fla., it’s in a modest brick bungalow in a run-down business park.

Each day at the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, workers review at least 5,000 pieces of terrorist-related data from intelligence agencies and keep an eye on world events. (Photo by: Melina Mara / The Washington Post)

Every day across the United States, 854,000 civil servants, military personnel and private contractors with top-secret security clearances are scanned into offices protected by electromagnetic locks, retinal cameras and fortified walls that eavesdropping equipment cannot penetrate.

This is not exactly President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex,” which emerged with the Cold War and centered on building nuclear weapons to deter the Soviet Union. This is a national security enterprise with a more amorphous mission: defeating transnational violent extremists.

Much of the information about this mission is classified. That is the reason it is so difficult to gauge the success and identify the problems of Top Secret America, including whether money is being spent wisely. The U.S. intelligence budget is vast, publicly announced last year as $75 billion, 21/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001. But the figure doesn’t include many military activities or domestic counterterrorism programs.

At least 20 percent of the government organizations that exist to fend off terrorist threats were established or refashioned in the wake of 9/11. Many that existed before the attacks grew to historic proportions as the Bush administration and Congress gave agencies more money than they were capable of responsibly spending.

The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, for example, has gone from 7,500 employees in 2002 to 16,500 today. The budget of the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic eavesdropping, doubled. Thirty-five FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces became 106. It was phenomenal growth that began almost as soon as the Sept. 11 attacks ended.

Nine days after the attacks, Congress committed $40 billion beyond what was in the federal budget to fortify domestic defenses and to launch a global offensive against al-Qaeda. It followed that up with an additional $36.5 billion in 2002 and $44 billion in 2003. That was only a beginning.

With the quick infusion of money, military and intelligence agencies multiplied. Twenty-four organizations were created by the end of 2001, including the Office of Homeland Security and the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Task Force. In 2002, 37 more were created to track weapons of mass destruction, collect threat tips and coordinate the new focus on counterterrorism. That was followed the next year by 36 new organizations; and 26 after that; and 31 more; and 32 more; and 20 or more each in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11. Each has required more people, and those people have required more administrative and logistic support: phone operators, secretaries, librarians, architects, carpenters, construction workers, air-conditioning mechanics and, because of where they work, even janitors with top-secret clearances.

With so many more employees, units and organizations, the lines of responsibility began to blur. To remedy this, at the recommendation of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, the George W. Bush administration and Congress decided to create an agency in 2004 with overarching responsibilities called the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to bring the colossal effort under control.

While that was the idea, Washington has its own ways.

The first problem was that the law passed by Congress did not give the director clear legal or budgetary authority over intelligence matters, which meant he wouldn’t have power over the individual agencies he was supposed to control.

The second problem: Even before the first director, Ambassador John D. Negroponte, was on the job, the turf battles began. The Defense Department shifted billions of dollars out of one budget and into another so that the ODNI could not touch it, according to two senior officials who watched the process. The CIA reclassified some of its most sensitive information at a higher level so the National Counterterrorism Center staff, part of the ODNI, would not be allowed to see it, said former intelligence officers involved.

And then came a problem that continues to this day, which has to do with the ODNI’s rapid expansion.

When it opened in the spring of 2005, Negroponte’s office was all of 11 people stuffed into a secure vault with closet-size rooms a block from the White House. A year later, the budding agency moved to two floors of another building. In April 2008, it moved into its huge permanent home, Liberty Crossing.

Today, many officials who work in the intelligence agencies say they remain unclear about what the ODNI is in charge of. To be sure, the ODNI has made some progress, especially in intelligence-sharing, information technology and budget reform. The DNI and his managers hold interagency meetings every day to promote collaboration. The last director, Blair, doggedly pursued such nitty-gritty issues as procurement reform, compatible computer networks, tradecraft standards and collegiality.

But improvements have been overtaken by volume at the ODNI, as the increased flow of intelligence data overwhelms the system’s ability to analyze and use it. Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications. The NSA sorts a fraction of those into 70 separate databases. The same problem bedevils every other intelligence agency, none of which have enough analysts and translators for all this work.

The practical effect of this unwieldiness is visible, on a much smaller scale, in the office of Michael Leiter, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Leiter spends much of his day flipping among four computer monitors lined up on his desk. Six hard drives sit at his feet. The data flow is enormous, with dozens of databases feeding separate computer networks that cannot interact with one another.

There is a long explanation for why these databases are still not connected, and it amounts to this: It’s too hard, and some agency heads don’t really want to give up the systems they have. But there’s some progress: “All my e-mail on one computer now,” Leiter says. “That’s a big deal.”

To get another view of how sprawling Top Secret America has become, just head west on the toll road toward Dulles International Airport.

As a Michaels craft store and a Books-A-Million give way to the military intelligence giants Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin, find the off-ramp and turn left. Those two shimmering-blue five-story ice cubes belong to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which analyzes images and mapping data of the Earth’s geography. A small sign obscured by a boxwood hedge says so.

Across the street, in the chocolate-brown blocks, is Carahsoft, an intelligence agency contractor specializing in mapping, speech analysis and data harvesting. Nearby is the government’s Underground Facility Analysis Center. It identifies overseas underground command centers associated with weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups, and advises the military on how to destroy them.

Clusters of top-secret work exist throughout the country, but the Washington region is the capital of Top Secret America.

About half of the post-9/11 enterprise is anchored in an arc stretching from Leesburg south to Quantico, back north through Washington and curving northeast to Linthicum, just north of the Baltimore-Washington International Marshall Airport. Many buildings sit within off-limits government compounds or military bases.

Others occupy business parks or are intermingled with neighborhoods, schools and shopping centers and go unnoticed by most people who live or play nearby.

Many of the newest buildings are not just utilitarian offices but also edifices “on the order of the pyramids,” in the words of one senior military intelligence officer.

Not far from the Dulles Toll Road, the CIA has expanded into two buildings that will increase the agency’s office space by one-third. To the south, Springfield is becoming home to the new $1.8 billion National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency headquarters, which will be the fourth-largest federal building in the area and home to 8,500 employees. Economic stimulus money is paying hundreds of millions of dollars for this kind of federal construction across the region.

Construction for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency in Springfield (Photo by: Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)

It’s not only the number of buildings that suggests the size and cost of this expansion, it’s also what is inside: banks of television monitors. “Escort-required” badges. X-ray machines and lockers to store cellphones and pagers. Keypad door locks that open special rooms encased in metal or permanent dry wall, impenetrable to eavesdropping tools and protected by alarms and a security force capable of responding within 15 minutes. Every one of these buildings has at least one of these rooms, known as a SCIF, for sensitive compartmented information facility. Some are as small as a closet; others are four times the size of a football field.

SCIF size has become a measure of status in Top Secret America, or at least in the Washington region of it. “In D.C., everyone talks SCIF, SCIF, SCIF,” said Bruce Paquin, who moved to Florida from the Washington region several years ago to start a SCIF construction business. “They’ve got the penis envy thing going. You can’t be a big boy unless you’re a three-letter agency and you have a big SCIF.”

SCIFs are not the only must-have items people pay attention to. Command centers, internal television networks, video walls, armored SUVs and personal security guards have also become the bling of national security.

“You can’t find a four-star general without a security detail,” said one three-star general now posted in Washington after years abroad. “Fear has caused everyone to have stuff. Then comes, ‘If he has one, then I have to have one.’ It’s become a status symbol.”

Among the most important people inside the SCIFs are the low-paid employees carrying their lunches to work to save money. They are the analysts, the 20- and 30-year-olds making $41,000 to $65,000 a year, whose job is at the core of everything Top Secret America tries to do.

At its best, analysis melds cultural understanding with snippets of conversations, coded dialogue, anonymous tips, even scraps of trash, turning them into clues that lead to individuals and groups trying to harm the United States.

Their work is greatly enhanced by computers that sort through and categorize data. But in the end, analysis requires human judgment, and half the analysts are relatively inexperienced, having been hired in the past several years, said a senior ODNI official. Contract analysts are often straight out of college and trained at corporate headquarters.

When hired, a typical analyst knows very little about the priority countries – Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan – and is not fluent in their languages. Still, the number of intelligence reports they produce on these key countries is overwhelming, say current and former intelligence officials who try to cull them every day. The ODNI doesn’t know exactly how many reports are issued each year, but in the process of trying to find out, the chief of analysis discovered 60 classified analytic Web sites still in operation that were supposed to have been closed down for lack of usefulness. “Like a zombie, it keeps on living” is how one official describes the sites.

The problem with many intelligence reports, say officers who read them, is that they simply re-slice the same facts already in circulation. “It’s the soccer ball syndrome. Something happens, and they want to rush to cover it,” said Richard H. Immerman, who was the ODNI’s assistant deputy director of national intelligence for analytic integrity and standards until early 2009. “I saw tremendous overlap.”

Even the analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which is supposed to be where the most sensitive, most difficult-to-obtain nuggets of information are fused together, get low marks from intelligence officials for not producing reports that are original, or at least better than the reports already written by the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency or Defense Intelligence Agency.

When Maj. Gen. John M. Custer was the director of intelligence at U.S. Central Command, he grew angry at how little helpful information came out of the NCTC. In 2007, he visited its director at the time, retired Vice Adm. John Scott Redd, to tell him so. “I told him that after 41/2 years, this organization had never produced one shred of information that helped me prosecute three wars!” he said loudly, leaning over the table during an interview.

Two years later, Custer, now head of the Army’s intelligence school at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., still gets red-faced recalling that day, which reminds him of his frustration with Washington’s bureaucracy. “Who has the mission of reducing redundancy and ensuring everybody doesn’t gravitate to the lowest-hanging fruit?” he said. “Who orchestrates what is produced so that everybody doesn’t produce the same thing?”

He’s hardly the only one irritated. In a secure office in Washington, a senior intelligence officer was dealing with his own frustration. Seated at his computer, he began scrolling through some of the classified information he is expected to read every day: CIA World Intelligence Review, WIRe-CIA, Spot Intelligence Report, Daily Intelligence Summary, Weekly Intelligence Forecast, Weekly Warning Forecast, IC Terrorist Threat Assessments, NCTC Terrorism Dispatch, NCTC Spotlight . . .

It’s too much, he complained. The inbox on his desk was full, too. He threw up his arms, picked up a thick, glossy intelligence report and waved it around, yelling.

“Jesus! Why does it take so long to produce?”

“Why does it have to be so bulky?”

“Why isn’t it online?”

The overload of hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annual reports is actually counterproductive, say people who receive them. Some policymakers and senior officials don’t dare delve into the backup clogging their computers. They rely instead on personal briefers, and those briefers usually rely on their own agency’s analysis, re-creating the very problem identified as a main cause of the failure to thwart the attacks: a lack of information-sharing.

A new Defense Department office complex goes up in Alexandria. (Photo by: Michael S. Williamson / The Washington Post)

The ODNI’s analysis office knows this is a problem. Yet its solution was another publication, this one a daily online newspaper, Intelligence Today. Every day, a staff of 22 culls more than two dozen agencies’ reports and 63 Web sites, selects the best information and packages it by originality, topic and region.

Analysis is not the only area where serious overlap appears to be gumming up the national security machinery and blurring the lines of responsibility.

Within the Defense Department alone, 18 commands and agencies conduct information operations, which aspire to manage foreign audiences’ perceptions of U.S. policy and military activities overseas.

And all the major intelligence agencies and at least two major military commands claim a major role in cyber-warfare, the newest and least-defined frontier.

“Frankly, it hasn’t been brought together in a unified approach,” CIA Director Panetta said of the many agencies now involved in cyber-warfare.

“Cyber is tremendously difficult” to coordinate, said Benjamin A. Powell, who served as general counsel for three directors of national intelligence until he left the government last year. “Sometimes there was an unfortunate attitude of bring your knives, your guns, your fists and be fully prepared to defend your turf.” Why? “Because it’s funded, it’s hot and it’s sexy.”

Last fall, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire at Fort Hood, Tex., killing 13 people and wounding 30. In the days after the shootings, information emerged about Hasan’s increasingly strange behavior at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he had trained as a psychiatrist and warned commanders that they should allow Muslims to leave the Army or risk “adverse events.” He had also exchanged e-mails with a well-known radical cleric in Yemen being monitored by U.S. intelligence.

But none of this reached the one organization charged with handling counterintelligence investigations within the Army. Just 25 miles up the road from Walter Reed, the Army’s 902nd Military Intelligence Group had been doing little to search the ranks for potential threats. Instead, the 902’s commander had decided to turn the unit’s attention to assessing general terrorist affiliations in the United States, even though the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI’s 106 Joint Terrorism Task Forces were already doing this work in great depth.

The 902nd, working on a program the commander named RITA, for Radical Islamic Threat to the Army, had quietly been gathering information on Hezbollah, Iranian Republican Guard and al-Qaeda student organizations in the United States. The assessment “didn’t tell us anything we didn’t know already,” said the Army’s senior counterintelligence officer at the Pentagon.

Secrecy and lack of coordination have allowed organizations, such as the 902nd in this case, to work on issues others were already tackling rather than take on the much more challenging job of trying to identify potential jihadist sympathizers within the Army itself.

Beyond redundancy, secrecy within the intelligence world hampers effectiveness in other ways, say defense and intelligence officers. For the Defense Department, the root of this problem goes back to an ultra-secret group of programs for which access is extremely limited and monitored by specially trained security officers.

These are called Special Access Programs – or SAPs – and the Pentagon’s list of code names for them runs 300 pages. The intelligence community has hundreds more of its own, and those hundreds have thousands of sub-programs with their own limits on the number of people authorized to know anything about them. All this means that very few people have a complete sense of what’s going on.

“There’s only one entity in the entire universe that has visibility on all SAPs – that’s God,” said James R. Clapper, undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the Obama administration’s nominee to be the next director of national intelligence.

Such secrecy can undermine the normal chain of command when senior officials use it to cut out rivals or when subordinates are ordered to keep secrets from their commanders.

One military officer involved in one such program said he was ordered to sign a document prohibiting him from disclosing it to his four-star commander, with whom he worked closely every day, because the commander was not authorized to know about it. Another senior defense official recalls the day he tried to find out about a program in his budget, only to be rebuffed by a peer. “What do you mean you can’t tell me? I pay for the program,” he recalled saying in a heated exchange.

Another senior intelligence official with wide access to many programs said that secrecy is sometimes used to protect ineffective projects. “I think the secretary of defense ought to direct a look at every single thing to see if it still has value,” he said. “The DNI ought to do something similar.”

The ODNI hasn’t done that yet. The best it can do at the moment is maintain a database of the names of the most sensitive programs in the intelligence community. But the database does not include many important and relevant Pentagon projects.

Because so much is classified, illustrations of what goes on every day in Top Secret America can be hard to ferret out. But every so often, examples emerge. A recent one shows the post-9/11 system at its best and its worst.

Last fall, after eight years of growth and hirings, the enterprise was at full throttle when word emerged that something was seriously amiss inside Yemen. In response, President Obama signed an order sending dozens of secret commandos to that country to target and kill the leaders of an al-Qaeda affiliate.

In Yemen, the commandos set up a joint operations center packed with hard drives, forensic kits and communications gear. They exchanged thousands of intercepts, agent reports, photographic evidence and real-time video surveillance with dozens of top-secret organizations in the United States.

That was the system as it was intended. But when the information reached the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington for analysis, it arrived buried within the 5,000 pieces of general terrorist-related data that are reviewed each day. Analysts had to switch from database to database, from hard drive to hard drive, from screen to screen, just to locate what might be interesting to study further.

As military operations in Yemen intensified and the chatter about a possible terrorist strike increased, the intelligence agencies ramped up their effort. The flood of information into the NCTC became a torrent.

Somewhere in that deluge was even more vital data. Partial names of someone in Yemen. A reference to a Nigerian radical who had gone to Yemen. A report of a father in Nigeria worried about a son who had become interested in radical teachings and had disappeared inside Yemen.

These were all clues to what would happen when a Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab left Yemen and eventually boarded a plane in Amsterdam bound for Detroit. But nobody put them together because, as officials would testify later, the system had gotten so big that the lines of responsibility had become hopelessly blurred.

“There are so many people involved here,” NCTC Director Leiter told Congress.

“Everyone had the dots to connect,” DNI Blair explained to the lawmakers. “But I hadn’t made it clear exactly who had primary responsibility.”

And so Abdulmutallab was able to step aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253. As it descended toward Detroit, he allegedly tried to ignite explosives hidden in his underwear. It wasn’t the very expensive, very large 9/11 enterprise that prevented disaster. It was a passenger who saw what he was doing and tackled him. “We didn’t follow up and prioritize the stream of intelligence,” White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan explained afterward. “Because no one intelligence entity, or team or task force was assigned responsibility for doing that follow-up investigation.”

Blair acknowledged the problem. His solution: Create yet another team to run down every important lead. But he also told Congress he needed more money and more analysts to prevent another mistake.

More is often the solution proposed by the leaders of the 9/11 enterprise. After the Christmas Day bombing attempt, Leiter also pleaded for more – more analysts to join the 300 or so he already had.

The Department of Homeland Security asked for more air marshals, more body scanners and more analysts, too, even though it can’t find nearly enough qualified people to fill its intelligence unit now. Obama has said he will not freeze spending on national security, making it likely that those requests will be funded.

More building, more expansion of offices continues across the country. A $1.7 billion NSA data-processing center will be under construction soon near Salt Lake City. In Tampa, the U.S. Central Command’s new 270,000-square-foot intelligence office will be matched next year by an equally large headquarters building, and then, the year after that, by a 51,000-square-foot office just for its special operations section.

Just north of Charlottesville, the new Joint-Use Intelligence Analysis Facility will consolidate 1,000 defense intelligence analysts on a secure campus.

Meanwhile, five miles southeast of the White House, the DHS has broken ground for its new headquarters, to be shared with the Coast Guard. DHS, in existence for only seven years, already has its own Special Access Programs, its own research arm, its own command center, its own fleet of armored cars and its own 230,000-person workforce, the third-largest after the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

Soon, on the grounds of the former St. Elizabeths mental hospital in Anacostia, a $3.4 billion showcase of security will rise from the crumbling brick wards. The new headquarters will be the largest government complex built since the Pentagon, a major landmark in the alternative geography of Top Secret America and four times as big as Liberty Crossing.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Methodology and credits

Comments

The Top Secret America database was put together by compiling hundreds of thousands of public records of government organizations and private-sector companies over the past two years.

From these records, The Washington Post identified 45 government organizations (for example, the FBI) engaged in top-secret work and determined that those 45 organizations could be broken down into 1,271 sub-units (for example, the Terrorist Screening Center of the FBI). One of the 45 organizations is represented as “unknown”; this category was created as a catchall for companies doing work for a government organization that could not be determined.

At the private-sector level, The Post identified 1,931 companies engaged in top-secret work for the government. Private-sector companies were grouped together and listed by a parent company’s name (for example, General Dynamics), even though one company might contain multiple sub-units (for example, General Dynamics Information Technology).

In a case where a large corporation (for example, Boeing) has a distinctly named sub-unit engaged in top-secret work (for example, Boeing’s Digital Receiver Technology), the name of the sub-unit was used. In the case of large corporations not primarily in the defense industry (for example, AT&T) that have similarly named sub-units that focus on top-secret work (for example, AT&T Government Solutions), the name of the parent company is used and the name of the sub-unit is noted. For every company listed, revenue and employee data and the date of establishment were drawn from public filings, Dun & Bradstreet data and original reporting.

State and local government organizations generally do not work at the top-secret level; that type of clearance is rarely granted to state officials. But the organizations are all part of a secretive domestic intelligence and homeland security world. The Post examined nearly 1,000 threat documents marked “For Official Use Only” and collected information from government Web sites, reports and other documents to identify 4,058 government organizations involved in domestic counterterrorism and homeland security. Of the total, 2,880 are federal organizations that work at the state level, such as the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). There are also 818 state and 360 local organizations. Many of these listed themselves in documents as participants in either Joint Terrorism Task Forces, fusion centers or Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils in 2009 or 2010.

More than 20 journalists worked on the investigation, including investigative reporters, cartography experts, database reporters, video journalists, researchers, interactive graphic designers, digital designers, graphic designers, and graphics editors at The Washington Post:

Stephanie Clark, Ben de la Cruz, Kat Downs, Dan Drinkard, Anne Ferguson-Rohrer, Justin Ferrell, David Finkel, Jennifer Jenkins, Robert Kaiser, Laris Karklis, Jacqueline Kazil, Lauren Keane, Todd Lindeman, Greg Manifold, Jennifer Morehead, Bonnie Jo Mount, Larry Nista, Ryan O’Neil, Sarah Sampsel, Whitney Shefte, Laura Stanton, Julie Tate, Doris Truong, Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso, Michael Williamson, Karen Yourish, Amanda Zamora

One researcher was funded in part by the Center on Law and Security at New York University Law School.

Monday, July 19, 2010; 4:50 PM

Find this story at 19 July 2010

Find the project at

© 2013 The Washington Post Company

 

 

Not just Verizon? Secret NSA effort to gather phone data is years old

WASHINGTON — The massive National Security Agency collection of telephone records disclosed Wednesday was part of a continuing program that has been in effect nonstop since 2006, according to the two top leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“As far as I know, this is the exact three-month renewal of what has been in place for the past seven years,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told reporters Thursday. The surveillance “is lawful” and Congress has been fully briefed on the practice, she added.

Her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss, concurred: “This is nothing new. This has been going on for seven years,” he said. “Every member of the United States Senate has been advised of this. To my knowledge there has not been any citizen who has registered a complaint. It has proved meritorious because we have collected significant information on bad guys, but only on bad guys, over the years.”

The statements by the two senators, whose committee positions give them wide access to classified data, appeared to rule out the possibility that the court order directing Verizon to turn over telephone records was related to the Boston Marathon bombings. The order was effective as of April 19, shortly after the bombings, which had sparked speculation about a link.

Instead, the surveillance, which was revealed Wednesday by Britain’s Guardian newspaper, appears to have been of far longer duration. Although the senators did not specify the scope of the surveillance, the fact that it has been in place since 2006 also suggests that it is not limited to any one phone carrier.

The Obama administration defended the program Thursday, saying the data collection “has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States.”

A senior administration official released a statement which did not confirm the existence of the court order authorizing the surveillance, which, according to the copy released by the Guardian, is marked “Top Secret.” It was issued in late April by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a secret court that meets in Washington, and allowed the government to collect the bulk data until July 19.

“The information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the name of any subscriber,” the official said. “It relates exclusively to metadata, such as a telephone number or the length of a call.

The court order was authorized under a provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allows the government to collect business records in bulk if its requests are approved by the court.

The official said telephone data allow “counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States.”

The official requested anonymity to discuss the counterterrorism program.

In defending the data collection program, the administration official sought to spread responsibility, noting that “all three branches” of government were tasked with review and oversight of surveillance.

“There is a robust legal regime in place governing all activities conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” the official said. He said that involves oversight by the Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the FISA court.

Separately, the Justice Department released a letter defending the administration’s handling of the FISA law that they had sent in 2011 to two senators who had objected to it.

“We do not believe the Executive Branch is operating pursuant to ‘secret law’ or ‘secret opinions of the Department of Justice,’ “ said the letter, signed by Assistant Atty. Gen. Ronald Weich. The “Intelligence Community is conducting court-authorized intelligence activities pursuant to a public statute, with the knowledge and oversight of Congress and the Intelligence Communities of both Houses.”

“Many other collection activities are classified,” Weich added, saying that “this is necessary because public disclosure of the activities they discuss would harm national security and impede the effectiveness of the intelligence tools that Congress has approved.”

Weich further defended the program by saying intelligence officials have “determined that public disclosure of the classified use” of the law “would expose sensitive sources and methods to our adversaries and therefore harm national security.”

He said collection of records, as now underway with Verizon phone logs, was different than material obtained through grand jury subpoenas. Grand jury subpoenas, he said, can be obtained by prosecutors without court approval. In contrast, he said, the intelligence collections can be done only with approval from a federal judge sitting on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Most importantly, he noted that FISA courts require a showing by officials that the records sought “are relevant to an authorized national security investigation.”

The Weich letter was sent to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-0re.).

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is testifying Thursday morning before the Senate Appropriations Committee, and is expected to address the matter further.

By Richard A. Serrano and Kathleen Hennessey

8:54 AM PDT, June 6, 2013Advertisement

Find this story at 6 June 2013

Copyright © 2013, Los Angeles Times

Verizon forced to hand over telephone data – full court ruling

The US government is collecting the phone records of millions of US customers of Verizon under a top secret court order. Read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order

Find this story at 6 June 2013

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 June 2013 00.04 BST

NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily

Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama

Under the terms of the order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data and the time and duration of all calls. Photograph: Matt Rourke/AP

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America’s largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an “ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government’s domestic spying powers.

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.

The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.

The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.

The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI’s request for its customers’ records, or the court order itself.

“We decline comment,” said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compels Verizon to produce to the NSA electronic copies of “all call detail records or ’telephony metadata’ created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad” or “wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls”.

The order directs Verizon to “continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order”. It specifies that the records to be produced include “session identifying information”, such as “originating and terminating number”, the duration of each call, telephone calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and “comprehensive communication routing information”.

The information is classed as “metadata”, or transactional information, rather than communications, and so does not require individual warrants to access. The document also specifies that such “metadata” is not limited to the aforementioned items. A 2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data, and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order.

While the order itself does not include either the contents of messages or the personal information of the subscriber of any particular cell number, its collection would allow the NSA to build easily a comprehensive picture of who any individual contacted, how and when, and possibly from where, retrospectively.

It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.

The court order appears to explain the numerous cryptic public warnings by two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, about the scope of the Obama administration’s surveillance activities.

For roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising the public that the US government is relying on “secret legal interpretations” to claim surveillance powers so broad that the American public would be “stunned” to learn of the kind of domestic spying being conducted.

Because those activities are classified, the senators, both members of the Senate intelligence committee, have been prevented from specifying which domestic surveillance programs they find so alarming. But the information they have been able to disclose in their public warnings perfectly tracks both the specific law cited by the April 25 court order as well as the vast scope of record-gathering it authorized.

Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert with the Cato Institute, explained: “We’ve certainly seen the government increasingly strain the bounds of ‘relevance’ to collect large numbers of records at once — everyone at one or two degrees of separation from a target — but vacuuming all metadata up indiscriminately would be an extraordinary repudiation of any pretence of constraint or particularized suspicion.” The April order requested by the FBI and NSA does precisely that.

The law on which the order explicitly relies is the so-called “business records” provision of the Patriot Act, 50 USC section 1861. That is the provision which Wyden and Udall have repeatedly cited when warning the public of what they believe is the Obama administration’s extreme interpretation of the law to engage in excessive domestic surveillance.

In a letter to attorney general Eric Holder last year, they argued that “there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows.”

“We believe,” they wrote, “that most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted” the “business records” provision of the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocates have long warned that allowing the government to collect and store unlimited “metadata” is a highly invasive form of surveillance of citizens’ communications activities. Those records enable the government to know the identity of every person with whom an individual communicates electronically, how long they spoke, and their location at the time of the communication.

Such metadata is what the US government has long attempted to obtain in order to discover an individual’s network of associations and communication patterns. The request for the bulk collection of all Verizon domestic telephone records indicates that the agency is continuing some version of the data-mining program begun by the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack.

The NSA, as part of a program secretly authorized by President Bush on 4 October 2001, implemented a bulk collection program of domestic telephone, internet and email records. A furore erupted in 2006 when USA Today reported that the NSA had “been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth” and was “using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity.” Until now, there has been no indication that the Obama administration implemented a similar program.

These recent events reflect how profoundly the NSA’s mission has transformed from an agency exclusively devoted to foreign intelligence gathering, into one that focuses increasingly on domestic communications. A 30-year employee of the NSA, William Binney, resigned from the agency shortly after 9/11 in protest at the agency’s focus on domestic activities.

In the mid-1970s, Congress, for the first time, investigated the surveillance activities of the US government. Back then, the mandate of the NSA was that it would never direct its surveillance apparatus domestically.

At the conclusion of that investigation, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho who chaired the investigative committee, warned: “The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter.”

Additional reporting by Ewen MacAskill and Spencer Ackerman

The Guardian, Thursday 6 June 2013

Find this story at 6 June 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Nato-Geheimarmeen: Bundesregierung überprüft Einleitung eines Ermittlungsverfahrens

Staatsminister Eckhard von Klaeden bestätigt Auflösung deutscher Gladio-Einheiten im September 1991

Nun ist auch die Bundesregierung auf den Plan gerufen: Die Vorwürfe des Duisburger Historikers Andreas Kramer, wonach der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) an Anschlägen auf Strommasten in Luxemburg beteiligt war (Stay Behind – Agenten sterben einsam ), werden derzeit auf Veranlassung der Bundesregierung überprüft.

Das geht aus einer Antwort von Staatsminister Eckhard von Klaeden (CDU) hervor, die der Bundestagsabgeordnete der Linkspartei, Andrej Hunko, auf seiner Internetseite veröffentlicht hat. Hunko wollte im April wissen, ob die Bundesregierung über Details zur Beteiligung des BND an den Anschlägen in Luxemburg vor beinahe 30 Jahren verfügt und welche Anstrengungen vonseiten der Bundesregierung unternommen wurden, um die Verwicklung deutscher Gladio-Einheiten in mögliche weitere Anschläge aufzuklären.

Klaeden ließ verlauten, dass “eine Prüfung der einschlägigen Unterlagen … bislang keine Hinweise ergeben (hat), die die … angesprochenen Sachverhalte bestätigen könnten”. Gleichzeitig erklärte Klaeden, dass dessen ungeachtet, “die Bundesregierung eine weitere Prüfung veranlasst” habe, “unter anderen die Prüfung, ob ein Ermittlungsverfahren einzuleiten ist”. Klaeden sagte außerdem zur Existenz der deutschen Gladio-Einheiten: “Infolge der weltpolitischen Veränderungen hat der Bundesnachrichtendienst in Abstimmung mit seinen alliierten Partnern zum Ende des 3. Quartals 1991 die Stay-behind-Organisation vollständig aufgelöst.” Anzeige

Der Schweizer Historiker und Friedensforscher Daniele Ganser, der intensiv zu den Geheimarmeen der Nato geforscht hat, sagte gegenüber Telepolis, dass sich Deutschland sehr schwer tue, einer Aufarbeitung des Kapitels Gladio im eigenen Land zu stellen.

In Deutschland hat man versucht, die Gladio-Forschung zu verhindern, aber das wird nicht gelingen, das Thema ist zu wichtig, gerade auch wegen den vermuteten Verbindungen zum Anschlag in München von 1980.
Daniele Ganser

Ganser erklärte, dass es es in Deutschland zunächst nur hinter verschlossenen Türen, im November 1990, eine Bestätigung der Stay-behind-Strukturen gab:

“Aber in der Öffentlichkeit log man die Bevölkerung an”, so Ganser weiter. Am 30. November 1990 habe Staatsminister Lutz Stavenhagen im Namen der Regierung Kohl gesagt, dass es Gladio-Einheiten in Deutschland nie gab. “Das war eine glatte Lüge. Kohl wollte vor den ersten gesamtdeutschen Wahlen keinen Geheimdienstskandal.”

Bislang ist es nicht einfach, die Glaubwürdigkeit Kramers einzuschätzen. Seine Äußerungen zum Anschlag auf das Münchner Oktoberfest 1980 könnten, wenn sie sich als richtig herausstellen, zu einem Staatsskandal führen (BND und Gladio in Oktoberfestattentat verwickelt?).

Marcus Klöckner 09.05.2013

Find this story at 9 May 2013

Dossier Von Nato-Geheimarmeen, Geheimdiensten und Terroranschlägen Gladio, Stay behind und andere Machenschaften

Copyright © 2013 Heise Zeitschriften Verlag

«Es war Nato gegen Nato»

Im Luxemburger Jahrhundert-Prozess zu den Bombenattentaten in den 80er-Jahren sagte Andreas Kramer am Dienstag aus, der in einer eidesstaatlichen Erklärung behauptete, sein Vater habe als Geheimdienst-Mitarbeiter die Anschläge in Luxemburg (und auch der Schweiz) koordiniert. Claude Karger, Chefredaktor des Luxemburger «Journal», begleitet den Prozess.

Der Historiker Andreas Kramer (rechts) unterhält sich mit Verteidiger Gaston Vogel in einer Prozesspause. (Bild: Pierre Matgé/Editpress)

Der «Stay Behind»-Leiter des Bundesnachrichtendiensts, Johannes Kramer alias «Cello» stecke hinter den Bombenattentaten im Grossherzogtum, die mithilfe von BND- und MI6-Agenten und zehn Luxemburger Unterstützern, die wiederum eigene Helfer angeheuert hätten, verübt wurden. Das sagte gestern sein Sohn, Andreas Kramer, unter Eid vor Gericht (siehe dazu den Artikel der TagesWoche «Der Sohn des Agenten»). Kramer Junior hatte bereits am 13. März eine eidesstattliche Erklärung abgegeben. Am 18. Prozesstag im «Bommeleeër»-Prozess gab er gestern ausführlich und detailliert Auskunft über die Informationen, die ihm sein im vergangenen November verstorbener Vater über Jahre mitgeteilt hat.

Dieser habe ihm mit dem Tod gedroht, falls er mit seinem Wissen an die Öffentlichkeit gehen sollte. Kramer Junior soll bei den Gesprächen auch erfahren haben, dass sein Vater, der ihn als «Stay Behind»-Agent habe aufbauen wollen, unter anderem auch verantwortlich für das blutige Attentat 1980 auf dem Münchner Oktoberfest (13 Tote und 211 zum Teil schwer Verletzte) war. Auf die Frage der vorsitzenden Richterin Sylvie Conter, weshalb er nicht mit den Informationen an deutsche Behörden gegangen sei, drückte der Zeuge sein Misstrauen gegenüber der deutschen Justiz aus, die im Fall München gar nicht weiter ermitteln wolle.
Auch in Anschläge in Italien, München und Belgien verwickelt

Die Attentate in Italien, in München und in Belgien seien Teil eines Beschlusses auf höchstem Nato-Niveau gewesen, genauer gesagt im «Allied Clandestine Committee», in das auch Luxemburg mit eingebunden war.

Das ACC wurde damals von Kramer Seniors direktem Vorgesetzten, dem deutschen General Leopold Chalupa, dem damaligen Oberbefehlshaber der Alliierten Streitkräfte Euro Mitte (CENTAG) geführt. Der Luxemburger «Service de Renseignement» sei direkt in die Befehlskette eingebunden gewesen. Als Koordinator verschiedener Operationen mit Geheimdiensten aus Deutschland, Grossbritannien und dem Benelux-Raum habe Kramer Senior sehr wohl Kontakt mit dem damaligen Geheimdienstchef Charles-Hoffmann gehabt, auch wenn dieser das abstreite, so sein Sohn vor Gericht.

Der auch dabei bleibt, dass Hoffmanns «Stay Behind»-Truppe für sämtliche Sprengstoffdiebstähle in den Jahren 1984 bis 1985 verantwortlich war. Der Luxemburger SB soll übrigens nicht nur – wie offiziell immer behauptet wird – aus Funkern und Helfern bestanden haben, sondern auch eine «Angriffsgruppe», für die es einen speziellen Operationsleiter gab. Hoffmann habe die Gruppen strikt voneinander abgeschottet. Die Eskalation der Aktion in Luxemburg habe allerdings sein Vater betrieben, am Luxemburger Geheimdienstchef vorbei und auch ohne seinen Vorgesetzten Chalupa ins Bild zu setzen. Kramer Junior sagte, dass von deutscher, respektive Alliierter Seite etwa 40 Männer an den Anschlägen beteiligt waren – ausser an jenem in den Kasematten, das von «Mitläufern» verübt worden sei.
«Nützliche Idioten»

In wechselnden Gruppen. Jedesmal drei bis vier Agenten hätten sich nach Luxemburg begeben und seien dort von den von Kramer angeworbenen «Kontakten», die über die notwendigen Ortskenntnisse verfügten, begleitet worden. Namen habe sein Vater ihm nicht genannt, so der Zeuge, lediglich der Name Geiben sei gefallen. Ausserdem habe Kramer Senior gesagt, dass Leute aus der Gendarmerie rekrutiert wurden, insbesondere gute Motorradfahrer. Als «nützliche Idioten» habe Kramer Senior diese Helfer bezeichnet.

Von einem Motorrad soll übrigens auch der Sprengsatz beim EG-Gipfel auf Kirchberg im Dezember 1985 abgeworfen worden sein. Die Sprengung des Wochenendhauses in Bourscheid im April 1985 soll übrigens ein Testlauf für die Kramer-Agenten gewesen sein, die danach Cegedel-Anlagen massiv ins Visier nahmen. Übrigens: Johannes Kramer selbst habe die Sprengfalle in Asselscheuer konzipiert und mit installiert. Eigenhändig habe er sogar drei der Erpresserbriefe an die Cegedel selbst geschrieben. Andreas Kramer hinterliess gestern eine DNA-Probe bei den Ermittlern, um sie mit Spuren zu vergleichen, die auf den Schreiben gefunden wurden.

Zurück zu Charles Hoffmann: Der habe als Geheimdienstchef die Anschläge natürlich nicht akzeptieren können. Schliesslich trug er zum Teil die Verantwortung für die Sicherheit des Landes. Also habe er sich an CIA und FBI gewandt, in der Hoffnung, dass die Amerikaner dem Spuk eine Ende machen indem sie auf höchster Nato-Ebene intervenieren. «Es war Nato gegen Nato», fasste Andreas Kramer die Lage zusammen. «Die CIA war Hoffmanns einzige Chance, sich selbst zu schützen», sagt Kramer. Zwei Ermittler des FBI seien seinem Vater und dessen Einsatztruppe damals eng auf den Fersen gewesen.
«Mit Hand und Fuss»

1986 wurde Luxemburg aus dem Nato-Spannungsprogramm rausgenommen, deshalb hätten die Anschlagsserie plötzlich aufgehört. «Mein Vater wusste, dass mit Ermittlungen in der «Bommeleeër»-Affäre zu rechnen sei», sagt Andreas Kramer. Der BND-Agent sei übrigens bestens über den Stand der Ermittlungen in Luxemburg informiert gewesen. Auch lange nachdem er aus dem offiziellen Dienst ausgeschieden war. Anfang 2007 habe er seinem Sohn bereits anvertraut, dass die beiden angeklagten Ex-Gendarmen Marc Scheer und Jos Wilmes nichts mit den Bombenanschlägen zu tun hatten.

Zu dem Zeitpunkt wusste die Öffentlichkeit hierzulande noch nicht, dass die beiden zusehends ins Visier der Fahnder gerieten. Wo sein Vater die Informationen her hat, wusste Andreas Kramer gestern nicht zu sagen. Kramer Senior hatte beim Verschwinden zahlreicher Beweisstücke offenbar seine Finger im Spiel. Diese, die, wie beim Prozess zu hören war, nur sehr ungenügend gesichert waren, habe er mit Unterstützung von SREL-Chef Hoffmann verschwinden lassen. Der keine Wahl gehabt habe, als mit anzupacken, die ganze Angelegenheit unter den Teppich zu kehren. Hoffmann hat in einem Interview bereits bestritten, dass er irgendetwas mit Johannes Kramer zu tun hatte und dass der Geheimdienst in die Bombenanschläge verwickelt war.

Das Gericht überlegte gestern, ob Charles Hoffmann nicht sehr zeitnah zu den Aussagen von Andreas Kramer gehört werden sollte. Der Zeuge wird darum auch heute Mittwoch noch vor Gericht stehen. Der beigeordnete Staatsanwalt Georges Oswald hätte gerne noch präzisere Informationen zu einzelnen Punkten, die von Kramer angesprochen wurden. Seine Aussage dass er in drei Stunden zuviel «generelles Blabla» gehört habe, sorgte sowohl beim Zeugen selbst, als auch bei der Verteidigung für energische Reaktionen. «Die drei letzten Stunden waren die ersten drei, in der mit Kopf und Fuss über «Stay Behind» gesprochen wurde», hielt Me Gaston Vogel entgegen. Die Ermittlungen seien trotz vieler Indizien nie in diese Richtung weiter getrieben worden.

Verteidigung zitiert aus Top-Secret-Dokumenten

Die «Top Secret»-Dokumente vom Mai, respektive September 1985, die die Verteidigung gestern vorbrachte, tragen die Unterschrift des damaligen Premiers Jacques Santer. Der genehmigte in den 1980ern eine Reihe von Übungen von Geheimdienstagenten mit «services clandestins» aus Belgien, Frankreich und Deutschland. Die Rede geht klar und deutlich von «Exercices Stay Behind» «dans le cadre de l‘instruction pratique des agents SB». Die Missionen: «diverses opérations d‘infiltration et d‘exfiltration de matériel et de personnel par la voie aérienne aussi bien que par la voie terrestre». Nicht nur ein Indiz dafür, dass hinter dem offiziell als «schlafendes» Funker- und Schleuser-Netzwerk dargestellten geheimen Netzwerk viel mehr steckt. Sondern vor allem dass Parlament und Öffentlichkeit in diesem Zusammenhang offenbar die volle Wahrheit vorenthalten wurde. Am 14. November 1990 trat Jacques Santer vor das Parlament mit folgender Aussage nachdem in ganz Europa «Stay Behind»-Netzwerke : «Je dois vous dire que j‘ai été aussi surpris que le Ministre belge d‘apprendre les activités de ce réseau qui ont défrayé le public et je ne crois pas qu‘un autre membre du Gouvernement en ait eu connaissance». Dabei unterschrieb der Premier regelmässig Genehmigungen für SB-Missionen!

10.4.2013, 11:31 Uhr

Find this story at 10 April 2013

Copyright © 2013 tageswoche.ch

BND und Gladio in Oktoberfestattentat verwickelt?

Duisburger Historiker Andrea Kramer behauptet, sein Vater sei für den Anschlag mit verantwortlich gewesen

Sagt Andreas Kramer die Wahrheit? War sein Vater für das Attentat auf dem Münchner Oktoberfest aus dem Jahr 1980 verantwortlich? Wenn es stimmt, was der Duisburger Historiker derzeit erzählt, dann steht der Bundesrepublik ein gewaltiger Skandal bevor. Telepolis berichtete bereits ausführlich über Kramer und seine Rolle in dem derzeit in Luxemburg stattfindenden Bommeleeër-Prozess (Bombenleger), bei dem zwei ehemalige Polizisten, die Mitglieder einer Spezialeinheit der Luxemburger Polizei waren, angeklagt sind (Stay Behind – Agenten sterben einsam, BND-Schattenmann Kramer in tödlicher Mission?). Ihnen wird zur Last gelegt für diverse Anschläge auf Infrastruktureinrichtungen, die vor beinahe 30 Jahren in Luxemburg verübt worden sind, verantwortlich zu sein.

Was zunächst lediglich nach einem inner-luxemburgischen Fall aussieht, hat sich schnell zu einem Prozess entwickelt, in dem das dunkle Kapitel der NATO-Geheimarmeen, die unter dem Namen Gladio oder Stay Behind bekannt wurden (Der lange Arm von Gladio und das Eingeständnis eines Bild-Reporters), neu in das Licht der Öffentlichkeit rückt.

Kramer, der immerhin unter Eid in Luxemburg ausgesagt hat, dass sein Vater, der Offizier der Bundeswehr, Mitarbeiter des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND) und dazu noch in in das Netzwerk der NATO-Geheimarmeen eingebunden war, für das Attentat auf das Münchner Oktoberfest verantwortlich sei, rückt nun auch in das Interesse größerer deutscher Medien.

In einem ausführlichen Interview vom vergangenen Sonntag in der Münchner Abendzeitung und in einem weiteren Interview in der taz von heute schildert Kramer detailliert den Hergang des Oktoberfestattentats aus seiner Sicht.

Die offizielle Darstellung, an der es ohnehin genügend Zweifel gibt, ist ein Märchen. Der Terrorakt war eine gezielte und lange vorbereitete Aktion des Bundesnachrichtendienstes, für den mein Vater gearbeitet hat und in dessen Auftrag er auch gehandelt hat.

Kramer beschreibt weiter, wie sein Vater zusammen mit dem angeblich für das Attentat allein verantwortlichen Gundolf Köhler, der bei dem Anschlag selbst ums Leben kam, die Bombe bei sich zuhause in der Garage gebaut habe.

Und Kramer weiter: “Das geschah nicht nur mit Billigung, sondern im Auftrag höchster Militär- und Geheimdienstkreise.” Anzeige

Mit Kramers Vorstoß in die Medienöffentlichkeit gewinnen die Vermutungen, wonach Köhler eben nicht Einzeltäter war, wie es in den offiziellen Berichten immer wieder dargestellt wurde, neuen Auftrieb. Seit vielen Jahren wird vermutet, dass Köhler den Anschlag nur mit Unterstützung von Hintermännern ausführen konnte. (Eine Vielzahl von Links zu den Zweifel rund um das Oktoberfestattentat findet sich hier).

Mit Kramers Aussagen steht nun erstmalig, neben der offiziellen Version, eine in sich kohärente Schilderung der Hintergründe des Oktoberfestattentats im Raum, in der Planung, Motiv und Täter genau genannt werden. Berliner Filmemacher haben in den vergangenen Wochen einen Beitrag für 3Sat Kulturzeit zum Prozess in Luxemburg ausgearbeitet , der heute Abend im Fernsehen gesendet wird und in dem auch Kramer zu Wort kommt . .

Kramer: Das passt sehr gut zusammen. Die Gladio-Truppen bestanden zu einem erheblichen Teil aus Neonazis und Rechtsextremisten. Gundolf Köhler, der Bombenleger von München und in der rechtsradikalen Szene eng vernetzt, war von meinem Vater angeworben worden. Er hat sich mehrmals mit ihm an seinem Wohnort in Donaueschingen getroffen, er hat die Komponenten für die Bombe besorgt, er hat sie zusammen mit Gundolf Köhler und einigen anderen Geheimdienstmitarbeitern gebaut.

Ihr Vater hat die Bombe gebaut? Und er hat auch gewusst, wofür sie eingesetzt werden sollte?

Kramer: Ja. Die Vorbereitungen für den Anschlag haben eineinhalb Jahre gedauert. Genau genommen wurden in einer Garage in Donaueschingen sogar drei Bomben gebaut. Eine wurde bei einem Test gezündet, eine andere in München verwendet. Was mit der dritten Bombe geschah, weiß ich nicht.

Und das geschah mit Billigung des Bundesnachrichtendienstes? Oder handelte Ihr Vater nach eigener Überzeugung abseits der Befehlskette?

Kramer: Das geschah nicht nur mit Billigung, sondern im Auftrag höchster Militär- und Geheimdienstkreise. Gladio war ja eine Organisation, die von der Nato eingefädelt worden war.

Marcus Klöckner 07.05.2013

Find this story at 7 May 2013

Copyright © 2013 Heise Zeitschriften Verlag

PsyOps in Luxemburg – welche Rolle spielte der BND? Die vorgetäuschten Terroranschläge bringen die Geheimdienste in Verlegenheit

Die eidesstattliche, vor einem Luxemburger Notar abgegebene Versicherung des deutschen Historikers Andreas Kramer, der über die geheimdienstliche Tätigkeit seines verstorbenen Vaters berichtet, ist inzwischen online veröffentlicht worden. Johannes Karl Kramer, vormaliger Soldat zuletzt im Range eines Hauptmanns im Verteidigungsministerium, war auch hochrangiger Agent des BND gewesen. Seinem Sohn zufolge war Kramer Operationsleiter von GLADIO/Stay Behind und koordinierte Einsätze in Deutschland, den Benelux-Staaten und der „neutralen“ Schweiz. Über Kramers Schreibtisch sollen die Bombenleger-Aktionen koordiniert worden sein. Zweck der Operationen waren vordergründig Übungen für den Fall einer sowjetischen Invasion, konkret aber dienten sie zur psychologischen Kriegsführung in Friedenszeiten. So sollte die eigene Bevölkerung terrorisiert werden, um sie hierdurch auf einen Rechtsruck gegen die vermeintlichen Gegner im linken Spektrum einzuschwören.

Kramer soll alle derartigen Aktionen mit dem späteren Chef des Luxemburger Geheimdienstes SREL, Charles Hoffmann, abgestimmt haben, der das Personal ausgesucht habe. Dieser soll in den 1970er Jahren an einem noch heute existenten NATO-Objekt in Sardinien für klandestine Spezialeinsätze ausgebildet worden sein. Hoffmann, der die Vorwürfe zurückweist, soll Gründungsmitglied des Gesprächskreis Nachrichtendienste in Deutschland e.V. sein, in dem u.a. Geheimdienst-Veteranen der Öffentlichkeit bei der Interpretation der Realität behilflich sein wollen. Vor der 2003 erfolgten Gründung dieses Clubs der Spionage-Opas besorgte derartige Propaganda das damalige „Institut für Terrorismusforschung und Sicherheitspolitik“, das der umstrittene Verfassungsschützer Hans Josef Horchem aufgezogen hatte. Von Anfang an dabei war der als Journalist posierende BND-Agent Wilhelm Dietl. Auch dieses Institut, das zu RAF-Zeiten die Presse mit hauseigenen „Terrorismus-Experten“ versorgte, wurde ebenfalls 2003 neugegründet, um nunmehr der Welt vom islamischen Terror zu künden.

Die Sekretärin des BND-Strategen Kramer hatte in den 1970er Jahren tragische Berühmtheit erlangt. Es handelte sich um die rechtsgerichtete Heidrun Hofer, die von einem vermeintlich deutschen „Hans Puschke“ verführt wurde, der sie scheinbar für eine in Südamerika angesiedelte Alt-Nazi-Organisation anwarb. Tatsächlich allerdings war „Puschke“ der KGB-General Jurij Ivanowitsch Drosdow. Nach ihrer Enttarnung 1976 überlebte Hofer einen Suizidversuch. Doch auch Kramer soll nach Aussage seines Sohnes seit 1973 Doppelagent gewesen sein und an Moskau berichtet haben. Dies bedeutet nichts weniger, als dass das bis heute streng geheime GLADIO-Netzwerk auf hoher Ebene verraten worden war. Die Saboteure wären im Ernstfall daher sabotiert gewesen.

Nachdem die geheimnisvollen Bombenanschläge, die seinerzeit Kommunisten und „Ökoterroristen“ in Misskredit brachten, nunmehr NATO-Geheimagenten zugeschrieben werden, bietet sich nun ein praktischer Sündenbock an. Im gestrigen Prozesstag, den das Luxemburger Wort protokollierte, wurde der einstige Waffenmeister der Luxemburger Polizei, Henri Flammang, für die übliche Rolle eines „Verwirrten“ gehandelt. Flammang soll krankhafter Waffennarr gewesen sein, der sogar sichergestellte Tatwaffen aus emotionalen Gründen nicht zerstören wollte. Bei Hausdurchsuchungen seien bei Flammang 434 Schusswaffen und über 70 kg Sprengstoff gefunden worden. Flammang soll unter wahnhaften Angstvorstellungen vor einer sowjetischen Invasion gelitten haben und sei vom Luxemburger Geheimdienst SREL als Agent angeworben worden. Flammang starb nicht durch die Hand eines Rotarmisten, sondern 1995 durch die eigene. Im Prozess wurde am Montag von einem angeblichen Abschiedsbrief gesprochen, in welchem sich Flammang als der Bombenleger zu erkennen gegeben habe. Das angebliche Dokument liegt jedoch bislang nicht vor.

Zeugenaussagen berichten von vier Tätern. In Verdacht stehen neben den beiden angeklagten Polizisten und dem verstorbenen Waffenmeister Flammang der Gründer der Spezialeinheit BMG Ben Geiben, dessen verstorbener Stellvertreter Jos Steil – sowie ein Herr namens Jean Nassau, den Zeugen am Tatort gesehen haben wollen. Herr Nassau war vom britischen Militär ausgebildet worden und brachte es in der Luxemburger Armee zum Rang eines Capitaine. Geboren wurde Herr Nassau als Jean Félix Marie Guillaume Prinz von Luxemburg, verzichtete jedoch 1986 auf sein Anrecht auf die Thronfolge.

Markus Kompa

19 – 03 – 2013

Find this story at 19 March 2013

Copyright © 2013 Heise Zeitschriften Verlag

Luxemburg: Deutscher BND-Mann bei Stay Behind Terroranschlägen involviert

Hinter Bombenattentaten in Luxemburg, welche mithilfe von BND- und MI6-Agenten und zehn luxemburgischen Unterstützern vollzogen wurden, steckt Medienberichten zufolge der Stay-Behind-Leiter des Bundesnachrichtendienstes, Johannes Kramer (Alias Cello). Die zehn luxemburgischen Unterstützer sollen demnach eigens weitere Helfer rekrutiert haben. Der Sohn von Johannes Kramer, Andreas, hatte dies unter Eid vor Gericht ausgesagt. Eine eidesstattliche Erklärung wurde bereits am 13. März dieses Jahres abgegeben. Der Sohn von Kramer gab zu verstehen, dass er sein Wissen nicht hätte an die Öffentlichkeit bringen dürfen, da der Vater ihm mit dem Tode gedroht hätte. Der Stay-Behind-Leiter des Bundesnachrichtendiensts, Johannes Kramer, war im November vergangenen Jahres verstorben. Auch hätte sein unter Eid vor Gericht aussagender Sohn in Gesprächen erfahren, dass sein Vater für das blutige Attentat 1980 auf dem Münchner Oktoberfest verantwortlich gewesen war. Kramer Senior wollte seinen Sohn demnach auch als Agenten für das Stay-Behind-Netzwerk anwerben. Auf die Frage vom Gericht hin, warum der Sohn denn nicht an deutsche Behörden herangetreten sei, sagte dieser, dass er Misstrauen gegen diese hegte, im Fall München hätte man gar nicht ermitteln wollen. Attentate in Italien, Belgien oder München waren Teil eines Beschlusses auf höchstem NATO-Niveau. Hier benannte man das Allied Clandestine Committee, in welchem auch Luxemburg mit eingebunden war. Jenes Allied Clandestine Committee soll damals von dem direkten Vorgesetzten von Kramer Senior geführt worden sein. Bei dieser Person handelt es sich um den deutschen General Leopold Chalupa, der ehemalige Oberbefehlshaber der Alliierten Streitkräfte Euro Mitte (CENTAG). Auch sei der luxemburgische Nachrichtendienst Service de Renseignement de l’Etat (SRE) in die Befehlskette mit eingebunden gewesen. Der «Stay Behind»-Leiter des Bundesnachrichtendiensts, Johannes Kramer, soll nach Angaben seines Sohnes als Koordinator bei Operationen mit Geheimdiensten aus Deutschland, Großbritannien und dem Benelux-Raum mitgewirkt haben, auch stand er im Kontakt mit dem ehemaligen Geheimdienstchef Charles-Hoffmann, obwohl dieser den Kontakt abstritt. Kramer Senior hätte verschiedene rekrutierte Figuren als “nützliche Idioten” bezeichnet. Im Jahr 1986 wurde Luxemburg aus dem Stay-Behind-Netzwerk (Spannungsprogramm) herausgenommen, womit die Anschlagsserie aufgehört hatte. Mehr dazu hier bei der TagesWoche: Bommeleeër-Affäre – “Es war Nato gegen Nato”

15.04.2013

Find this story at 15 April 2013

Copyright © Glaronia.com

Geheimdienst SREL: EX-Chef Hoffmann über Stay Behind-Zelle in Luxemburg

Beim luxemburgischen Untersuchungsausschuss stand am Dienstag Charles Hoffman als dritter Geheimdienstdirektor Rede und Antwort. Dieser leitete den SREL in den Jahren von 1985 bis 2003. Beigetreten war er dem Dienst 1976. Es ging bei der Befragung unter anderem auch um das sogenannte “Stay Behind” Netzwerk. Vor Beginn der Erklärung sagte Hoffmann, dass der Geheimdienst niemals für eine “politische Partei” gearbeitet hätte. Mit Blick auf die Bommeleeër-Affäre könne er keine Angaben machen, da die Staatsanwaltschaft in der Sache noch ermitteln würde, so der Ausschusspräsident Alex Bodry. Hoffmanns Aufgabenbereich war die Gegenspionage und die Terrorbekämpfung. Als EX-Chef des SREL gab er auch wenige Details über die Stay-Behind-Zelle in Luxemburg bekannt, die er leitete. “Bis zu” zwölf Personen gehörten dieser an, welche einander nicht kannten, hieß es. Selbst er hätte nicht gewusst, wer der Zelle angehöre. Im Fall einer angenommenen Besetzung (Sowjet) in den Zeiten des Kalten Krieges wäre es die Aufgabe der Untergrundzelle gewesen, Informationen über den Feind zu liefern, so Hoffmann. Bei logischer Betrachtung hört sich dies ein “wenig” ominös an, dass Hausfrauen, Lehrer, Handwerker und Eisenbahner im “Fall einer Besetzung” einen auf “Spitzel” machen sollten, um so Informationen zu gewinnen. Für derartige Aufgaben standen sicherlich auch offizielle Strukturen in Militär etc. bereit, in einem angenommen Fall, dass mit einer “Besetzung” derartige Informationsbeschaffungsaufgaben umgesetzt werden sollten. Innerhalb der Befragung von Hoffmann hieß es unter anderem, dass während den Zeiten des Kalten Krieges, wenn Bürger aus einem Land kamen, das damals zum potenziellen Feind gehörte, man diese beobachtet hätte. Sie „wurden auch gefragt“, ob sie „für uns arbeiten wollen“. Das sei die Arbeit der Spionageabwehr gewesen. Zudem hätte es damals zu seinem Aufgabenbereich gehört, Terrorbekämpfung durchzuführen. Hier erinnerte Hoffmann daran, dass es damals in den Nachbarländern, in den 1970er und 1980er Jahren, aktive Terrorgruppen gegeben hatte. In Luxemburg kontrollierte man auch, ob sich Individuen dieser Gruppen im Land aufhielten. Zu Stay-Behind. Das war eine internationale Struktur der Alliierten, „nicht eine der Nato“. So hätte auch die Schweiz mitgemacht. Die Agenten hätten einander nicht gekannt, er habe sie als Chef auch nicht gekannt. Nur die Person, die das Stay-Behind-Mitglied rekrutiert kannte er. (weiterer Verlauf hier) Eine Woche zuvor wurde der vormalige SREL-Chef Marco Mille vernommen. Dieser wurde 2003 Chef des SREL (Service de Renseignement de l’Etat). Er hätte damals eine “Black Box” vorgefunden, da die [wie üblicherweise praktiziert] Abteilungen voneinander abgeschottet gearbeitet hätten. Die gesammelten Informationen waren “nicht allgemein” verfügbar, was auch für Informationen in den Dossiers der Bombenanschläge und “Stay Behind” gegolten habe, so Mille. Nach seinen Angaben wollte er das etablierte Abschottungssystem [Anm. z.B. Matrjoschka-Prinzip, Zwiebelring oder Pyramidal] “reformieren”, was jedoch “nicht gut” angekommen sei. Es habe große Widerstände gegenüber Neuerungen gegeben, sagte der Ex-SREL-Chef. (weiterführend hier) 21.11.12: Eine Splittergruppe im Geheimdienst? 25.03.12: Luxemburgs Schattenkämpfer Dr. Daniele Ganser zu den Berichten des parlamentarischen Geheimdienstkontrollausschuss über „Stay behind“ und die Rolle des SREL bei den „Bommeleeër“-Ermittlungen – Das letzte Wort ist noch nicht gesprochen [PDF] (18. Juli 2008) Italien: Das im Jahr 1990 wegen Mordes an drei Carabinieri verurteilte Gladio- und Ordine Nuovo-Mitglied Vincenzo Vinciguerra erklärte zu den Hintergründen der Verbrechen (Strategie der Spannung): „Man musste Zivilisten angreifen, Männer, Frauen, Kinder, unschuldige Menschen, unbekannte Menschen, die weit weg vom politischen Spiel waren. Der Grund dafür war einfach. Die Anschläge sollten das italienische Volk dazu bringen, den Staat um größere Sicherheit zu bitten. […] Diese politische Logik liegt all den Massakern und Terroranschlägen zu Grunde, welche ohne richterliches Urteil bleiben, weil der Staat sich ja nicht selber verurteilen kann.“ Buch zur Thematik “Gladio”: Verdeckter Terror – Nato Geheimarmeen in Europa – Autor Daniele Ganser (ISBN 978-3280061060) – Daniele Ganser, geb. 1972 in Lugano, ist Historiker, spezialisiert auf Zeitgeschichte nach 1945 und internationale Politik. Seine Forschungsschwerpunkte sind Friedensforschung, Geostrategie, verdeckte Kriegsführung, Ressourcenkämpfe und Wirtschaftspolitik. Er unterrichtet am Historischen Seminar der Universität Basel und forscht zum “Peak Oil”, dem globalen Kampf ums Erdöl, und dem so genannten “Krieg gegen den Terrorismus”.

27.01.2013

Find this story at 27 January 2013

Copyright © Glaronia.com

Eine Splittergruppe im Geheimdienst? Ausschuss befasste sich mit dem Lauschangriff auf Colonel Harpes

(ham) – Die jüngsten Entwicklungen in der Affäre Bommeleeër sowie ein Relikt des kalten Krieges standen am Mittwoch auf der Tagesordnung des parlamentarischen Geheimdienstausschusses, zu der auch Srel-Chef Patrick Heck geladen war. Konkret ging es in der Sitzung um das Netzwerk „Stay Behind“ sowie um den vermeintlichen Lauschangriff auf den ehemaligen Chef der Gendarmerie, Colonel Aloyse Harpes in den Jahren 1985 und 1986.

Unterliegen die Beratungen des parlamentarischen Ausschusses der Geheimhaltung, so lieferte der Vorsitzende François Bausch dennoch Einblicke in die Erkenntnisse der morgendlichen Sitzung. Im Sinne der Allgemeinheit und da die meisten Elemente bereits in der Öffentlichkeit diskutiert würden, begründete der Abgeordnete gegenüber dem „Luxemburger Wort“ diese Entscheidung.

Bezüglich des „Stay behind“-Netzwerkes gebe es keine Spuren, dass Verbindungen zu anderen paramilitärischen Gruppierungen bestanden habe, die auch im Ausland operierten. „Stay behind“ war ein Teil des geheimen Gladio-Netzwerkes der Nato, das für den Fall der Besetzung durch feindliche Truppen nachrichtendienstliche Aufklärung leisten und Sabotageakte verüben sollten.

Kein offizieller Abhörbefehl

Was nun den Lauschangriff auf Colonel Aloyse Harpes angeht, so habe der „Service de renseignement“ (Srel) keinen Anhaltspunkt gefunden, dass eine solche Aktion auf dem Höhepunkt der Bombenanschläge in den Jahren 1985 und 1986 offiziell verordnet und durchgeführt worden sei.

Ein Zeuge, der selbst an der Abhöraktion beteiligt gewesen sein will, hatte sich 2009 zu Wort gemeldet und behauptet, der Chef der Gendarmerie sei von der Kaserne auf dem Herrenberg aus ein Jahr lang abgehört worden.

François Bausch betonte am Mittwoch, dass sich diese Erkenntnisse auf den offiziellen Dokumenten und Aussagen von Mitarbeitern aus jener Zeit stützten.

Nun könne aber nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass eine Gruppierung unabhängig gehandelt habe. „Der Geheimdienst konnte uns aber nicht garantieren, dass es zum damaligen Zeitpunkt keine Unstimmigkeiten innerhalb des Srel gegeben hatte“, betonte Bausch.

Da die jüngsten Enthüllungen in der Bommeleeër-Affäre immer wieder Ex-Mitarbeiter der damaligen Gendarmerie ins Rampenlicht rückten, und solche auch beim Srel tätig waren, gewinne die Hypothese einer Gruppe, die auf eigene Faust gehandelt haben soll, an Bedeutung.

Vertrauen in aktuelle Srel-Mitarbeiter

Im gleichen Atemzug versicherte François Bausch aber, dass der Ausschuss absolutes Vertrauen in die aktuellen Mitarbeiter des Luxemburger Nachrichtendienstes habe. Man dürfe diese Leute nicht in einen Topf mit Ex-Mitarbeitern werfen, die von diesen Enthüllungen betroffen seien. Schließlich sei die Arbeitsweise des Srel vor der Reform des Nachrichtendienstes ein Relikt des kalten Krieges gewesen.

Der Lauschangriff selbst sei laut Srel-Chef Patrick Heck technisch möglich gewesen, wenn auch mit einer mobilen Abhörvorrichtung. Nun soll der „Service de renseignement“ aber kein solches Gerät besessen haben. Im Gegensatz zur damaligen Gendarmerie, die Aufzeichnungen zufolge in den achtziger Jahren eine mobile Abhörstation bestellt hatte.

Veröffentlicht am 21.11.12 19:59 Vorlesen

Find this story at 21 November 2012

© WORT.LU 2013

Stay Behind – Agenten sterben einsam: Zeuge Andreas Kramer sagt im Geheimdienstprozess über seinen geheimnisvollen Vater aus

Im Luxemburger Bombenleger-Prozess wurde am Dienstag der bislang wohl spektakulärste Zeuge Andreas Kramer vernommen. Der Duisburger Historiker hatte vor einigen Wochen u.a. den deutschen Bundesnachrichtendienst in einer eidesstattlichen Versicherung belastet, in den 1980er Jahren in inszenierte Terroranschläge verwickelt gewesen zu sein. Kramers Vater, Johannes Karl Kramer, sei beim BND ein Strippenzieher gewesen, der mit dem damaligen Leiter des Luxemburger Geheimdienstes SREL Bombenanschläge geplant habe, um die Bevölkerung auf einen Rechtsruck einzuschwören.

Die Aussagen, die Kramer im Luxemburger Gerichtssaal machte, sind sensationell – vielleicht sogar zu sensationell. An einigen Punkten widersprach sich der Historiker, der immerhin unter Eid aussagte. Während von Zeugen die möglichst interpretationsfreie Schilderungen von Tatsachenwahrnehmung erwartet wird, kommentierte Kramer eifrig und verkündete laut Protokoll des LUXEMBURGER WORT, in Deutschland habe es keine Möglichkeit gegeben, Informationen an die Presse und Justiz weiterzugeben, da die Aufarbeitung des Stay-Behind in Deutschland systematisch unterdrückt werde. Der Zeuge Kramer gibt an, in den 1990er Jahren Chefarchivar im Bundestag gewesen und als solcher auch mit Geheimdienstangelegenheiten befasst gewesen zu sein. Für einen Akademiker in ehemaliger Führungsposition, der gerade den Medienauftritt seines Lebens absolviert, war Kramer erstaunlich leger gekleidet. Auch das offenbar fahrige Auftreten und der Mitteilungsdrang des Zeugen fördern nicht gerade seine Glaubwürdigkeit, sondern wecken Assoziationen zu verschrobenen Verschwörungstheoretikern, wie sie etwa im Spielfilm Fletchers Visionen dargestellt werden.

Was von Kramers Aussagen zu halten ist, was wirklich aus seiner Beobachtung stammt, oder was er aus Büchern übernommen hat oder selbst schlussfolgert, ist schwierig zu beurteilen. Anderseits gibt es viele Sachverhalte, die lange als Verschwörungstheorien galten und lächerlich gemacht wurden, sich dann jedoch als zutreffend herausstellten. Bei Whistleblowern, die etwa eingeschüchtert wurden, kommt es häufiger vor, dass diese “ein bisschen durch den Wind” sind, zumal es vorliegend um eine tragische Vater-Sohn-Beziehung geht. Sollten nur einige der von Kramer gelieferten Puzzle-Stücke echt sein, dann hätte es sich schon gelohnt, sich mit Kramers spektakulärer, aber mit Vorsicht zu genießender Aussage zu befassen.

Kramer sagte laut Protokoll des LUXEMBURGER WORT aus, sein letztes Jahr verstorbener Vater Johannes Karl Kramer sei Verantwortlicher des Stay-Behind-Netzwerkes in Deutschland gewesen. Dieser habe keine Freunde gehabt, so dass er sich praktisch nur seinem Sohn habe anvertrauen können, den er für Stay Behind (“GLADIO”) habe rekrutieren wollen. Unter dem Deckname “Cello” habe der Schattenmann bis zu seinem 70. Lebensjahr in der “Abteilung 4” des BND gearbeitet und sei mit der Koordination von NATO-Geheimdiensten befasst gewesen. U.a. an der Bombenserie in Luxemburg sei er unmittelbar beteiligt gewesen und hätte diese mit dem damaligen Chef des Luxemburger Geheimdienstes, Charles Hoffmann, gemeinsam geplant. Kramer senior habe mit Hoffmann einem „Allied Clandestine Committee“ angehört, das Bundeswehr-General Leopold Chalupa unterstanden habe. Kramer hätte jedoch hinter dem Rücken von General Chalupa eigenmächtig gehandelt.

Kramer will mit seinen Enthüllungen den Tod seines Vaters abgewartet haben, weil dieser ihm selbst mit dem Tod gedroht habe, falls er auspacken werde. Diese Drohung habe er ernst genommen, da Johannes Karl Kramer nicht nur zu Morden fähig gewesen sei, sondern solche geradezu manisch begangen hätte und daher Strafverfolgung hätte befürchten müssen. So sei der BND-Mann in das Münchner Oktoberfest-Attentat verwickelt gewesen, bei dem vieles auf GLADIO deutet. Die konkret Beteiligten habe Johannes Karl Kramer als “nützliche Idioten” bezeichnet.

Luxemburg sei als Operationsort gewählt worden, weil das Großherzogtum damals noch nicht das Haager Abkommen zur Landkriegsordnung unterzeichnet hätte, die Sprengfallen verbiete. Hoffmann sei mit Kramer senior keineswegs befreundet gewesen, habe sich sogar eigens an die CIA gewandt, weil er keine weiteren Anschläge in Luxemburg dulden wollte. Das FBI (das für die Ermittlungen gegen Doppelagenten usw. zuständig ist) sei Kramer senior auf den Fersen gewesen, habe von ihm jedoch wegen Unkenntnis der Benelux-Länder an der Nase herumgeführt werden können. Kramer gab an, sein Vater habe einige der Erpresserbriefe selbst geschrieben. Dieser habe vermutet, das FBI hätte ihn überführen können, hätten sie damals die DNA-Analyse zur Verfügung gehabt. Kramer selbst gab im Gerichtssaal eine Probe seiner eigenen DNA.

Johannes Karl Kramer, der selbst Sprengmeister gewesen sei, habe seinem Sohn zufolge auch seine Finger beim Anschlag auf das EG-Gipfeltreffen auf dem Luxemburger Kirchberg gehabt. Er habe damit geprahlt, die Sicherheitsvorkehrungen überwunden zu haben. Die Bombe sei von einem Motorrad geworfen worden. Der Schattenmann soll von einer Brigade aus Luxemburg berichtet haben, die Motorräder eingesetzt habe. Der einzige Namen, den Kramer insoweit nannte, war der von Ben Geiben, jenem Super-Flic, der die Einheit gegründet hatte und danach Sicherheitschef von Euro-Disney wurde.

Dass Hoffmann mit Stay Behind befasst war, lässt sich nunmehr kaum abstreiten. So veröffentliche Strafverteidiger Gaston Vogel einen Brief Hoffmans, in dem dieser von einer “Stay Behind-Übung” spricht. Dieser trägt den handschriftlichen Vermerk “d’accord” (“Einverstanden”) von keinem Geringeren als Ehrenstaatsminister Jacques Santer vor. Der allerdings hatte Vogel zufolge immer wieder behauptet, von Übungen mit belgischen, französischen und britischen Geheimdiensten nichts gewusst zu haben. Au contraire …

UPDATE: Anders, als in der ursprünglichen Fassung angegeben, scheint der Zeuge Kramer nicht promoviert zu haben.

Markus Kompa
09.04.2013

Find this story at 9 April 2013

Copyright © 2013 Heise Zeitschriften Verlag

In Luxemburg kocht Stay Behind hoch; Ein Geheimdienstprozess erschüttert das Großherzogtum

Der Luxemburger Geheimdienstskandal bietet ganz großes Kino: Eine James-Bond-Uhr, Spezialagenten, Bombenanschläge, Verwicklung ausländischer Mächte, Cover Up, Hochverrat durch einen Geheimdienstchef und eine ruchbare Intrige im Hochadel. Ein Untersuchungsausschuss sowie ein Strafprozess gegen zwei vormalige Angehörige einer Polizeispezialeinheit sollen das trübe Kapitel aus dem Kalten Krieg beleuchten – mit Staatschef Jean-Claude Juncker nebst Hochadel und Geheimdienstelite im Zeugenstand.

In den 1980er Jahren wurde das Großherzogtum Luxemburg von einer bis heute ungeklärten Serie an Bombenanschlägen terrorisiert, die Strommasten, Polizeistationen, den Justizpalast, den Flughafen, ein Schwimmbad, ein Gaswerk und auch eine Zeitung beschädigten. Ein Mensch wurde durch eine raffinierte Sprengfalle verletzt, eine weitere hätte beinahe Todesopfer gefordert. Ein erstes angebliches Bekennerschreiben eines “Mouvement Ecologiste Combattant” schien die grüne Bewegung in Misskredit zu bringen. Zwar reagierte man auf lancierte Forderungen nach Schutzgeld, das etwa während des Papstbesuchs hätte übergeben werden sollte, in dem die Behörden Geldkoffer an den gewünschten Stellen bereitstellten. Statt diese abzuholen, schilderten die erstaunlich gut informierten Bombenleger jedoch präzise, wer genau ihnen alles vor Ort eine Falle stellte. Etwa zur selben Zeit gab es in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland Anschläge, die ohne harte Beweise einer mysteriösen “Dritten Generation der RAF” zugeschrieben wurden, die deutlich professioneller als ihre Vorgänger agierte, deren politische Motive dafür jedoch diffus blieben.

Ein Luxemburger Ehepaar, das einen der Bombenleger beobachtet hatte, fühlte sich von der Polizei nicht ernst genommen. Statt sie als Zeugen anzuhören, habe man auf sie eingeredet und Verwirrung gestiftet. Beim Anfertigen eines Phantombilds hätten sich die Beamten bemüht, das Ergebnis von den Beschreibungen abweichend zu zeichnen. Das behördliche Desinteresse erinnert an die unzähligen “Ermittlungspannen”, die den Behörden anderer NATO-Länder in den 1980er Jahren bei der Aufklärung von Terroranschlägen unterliefen. Vor allem der geringe Sachschaden sah dem damals nur wenige Jahre zurückliegenden Celler Loch ähnlich, selbst eine Neuauflage der geheimdienstlichen Operation Nordpol.

Mr ?

Vor einigen Jahren tauchte bei RTL ein Zeuge auf, der anonym bleiben wollte, und darauf bestand, ausschließlich und persönlich mit Luxemburgs Premierminister Jean-Claude Juncker zu sprechen. Das Treffen wurde schließlich gewährt und der Mann informierte Juncker über eine Person, die er beobachtet habe. Er gab an, die Luxemburger Sûreté habe ihn davor gewarnt, diesen Namen zu nennen, er habe sonst mit persönlichen Konsequenzen zu rechnen. Der Informant schrieb Juncker den Namen auf einen Zettel, worauf hin der Regierungschef den Großherzog persönlich aufsuchte. Beim Namen soll sich um keinen Geringeren als “Jean Nassau” handeln – den zweitgeborenen Bruder des Großherzogs Henri. “Mäi Gott”!

Auch das genannte Ehepaar wollte den Prinzen erkannt haben. Doch Hoheit erinnerte sich nach 20 Jahren, an diesem Tag in den Wäldern des Loir-et-Cherwaren der Jagd gefrönt zu haben und stellte sein Alibi mit Zeugen und einem Brief seiner Verlobten unter Beweis. Der Informant soll inzwischen verstorben sein.

Mr M

Ein Schattenmann namens “M” schien ein Freund und Kollege von André Kemmer zu sein, einem Offizier des Luxemburger Geheimdienstes SREL. M fiel offenbar der Mitschnitt eines abgehörten Gesprächs zwischen Juncker und dem Großherzog in die Hände. M sandte dem Geheimdienst SREL eine verschlüsselte CD, auf der die Aufzeichnung angeblich zu hören ist. Der SREL will den Code aber bis heute nicht geknackt haben.

Mr Mille

Juncker bat 2008 den damaligen Luxemburger Geheimdienstchef Marco Mille zur Unterredung. Mille berichtete, dass der Großherzogliche Hof in Luxemburg sich um Abhörtechnik für Telefongespräche bemüht hätte, wobei man mit dem Geheimdienst ihrer Majestät konspiriert hätte. Die Verbindungen ins Vereinigte Königreich sind exzellent, da der Luxemburger Hochadel seine Sprösslinge auf britische Schulen zu senden pflegte.

Geheimdienstchef Mille war sich nicht zu schade dafür, das Gespräch mit seinem politischen Vorgesetzten ebenfalls heimlich aufzuzeichnen, wobei sich der Schattenmann stilecht einer verwanzten Armbanduhr bediente. Wie inzwischen bekannt ist, kam es damals zu weiteren illegalen Abhöraktivitäten. Die Peinlichkeit wurde perfekt, als der Mitschnitt aus der Spezialuhr seinen Weg in die Öffentlichkeit fand. Der SREL soll seinerzeit auch ergebnislos versucht haben, M abzuhören, indem man ihm ein präpariertes Mobilfunktelefon unterjubelte. Der damalige Geheimdienstchef Mille ist heute Sicherheitschef beim deutschen Siemens-Konzern (wo man sich von der Mobilfunksparte längst verabschiedet hat und Armbanduhren zu retouchieren pflegt). Strafrechtlich betrachtet ist die Abhöraktion inzwischen verjährt.

Tote E-Mail-Briefkästen

Das Aufrollen des Bombenleger-Falls ist nicht unwesentlich das Resultat zweier Journalisten des Luxemburger Senders RTL, Nico Graf und Marc Thoma, die sich über 15 Jahre nicht beirren ließen. Sie richteten 2005 für Whistleblower eigens die E-Mail-Adresse “bomm@rtl.lu” ein. Die Staatsanwaltschaft kopierte diese Idee, wobei sich die Behörde der Dienste von Hotmail bediente: “enquete85@hotmail.com”. 10 Tage nach Einrichtung dieser Hotmail-Adresse entrüstete sich ein unbekannter Hacker über die laxen Sicherheitsstandards der Staatsanwaltschaft und mailte Logindaten nebst Passwort an die RTL-Adresse. Dies führte zu einer Hausdurchsuchung bei RTL, über die sich der Sender bitter beklagte.

“Super-Flic”

Zwischenzeitlich wurde als Hauptfigur der Polizist Ben Geiben gehandelt, der Ende der 1970er Jahre die “Brigade mobile de la Gendarmerie” aufgebaut hatte, der die beiden Angeklagten angehörten. Geiben hatte die Polizei überraschend Jahre vor den Anschlägen verlassen. Bereits 1985 geriet er wegen seines damals kaum erklärbaren Berufswechsels und aufgrund seiner Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse in einen vagen Anfangsverdacht. Sein Nachfolger ließ ihn deshalb erfolglos beschatten. Geiben begründete sein Ausscheiden aus dem Polizeidienst mit seiner Homosexualität, mit der er die Behörde im katholischen Luxemburg nicht in Verruf habe bringen wollen.

“Ermittlungspannen”

Am Montag begann nun der Prozess gegen die zwei Polizisten Jos Wilmes und Marco Scheer, denen man vorwirft, sie hätten als Angehörige der “Brigade mobile de la Gendarmerie (BMG)” gemeinsam mit zwei weiteren (inzwischen verstorbenen) Kollegen die Anschläge inszeniert, um mehr Mittel für die Ordnungskräfte durchzusetzen. Im Verlauf der Ermittlungen verschwanden 88 von 125 Beweisstücken. Mal versickerten Beweise, die man zur Sicherung eines Fingerabdrucks an das deutsche BKA geschickt hatte, auf dem Rückweg, mal auf dem Weg zum amerikanischen FBI, mal brach in einem Archiv Feuer aus. Anzeige

Der ermittelnde Staatsanwalt Biever schrieb schließlich seinem Justizminister einen offenen Brief, in dem er sich insbesondere darüber beschwerte, dass bei der Polizei offenbar “Amnesie” grassiere. Der “Gedächtnisverlust” nehme mit dem Rang der Vernommenen bis rauf zur Polizeiführung zu. Geibens Nachfolger konnte sich an erstaunlich viele Details aus dieser Zeit erinnern, nicht aber, dass er eine Beschattung seines eigenen Vorgängers angeordnet hätte, und musste seine Dienstmütze nehmen. Die Luxemburger nahmen den Fall zum Anlass, ihr Strafgesetzbuch um den Tatbestand “entrave à la justice” nachzubessern, was in etwa der deutschen “Strafvereitelung” entspricht.

Whistleblower?

Doch seit letzter Woche gibt es in der Luxemburger Geheimdienst-Saga einen weiteren Akteur. So diente sich den beiden Journalisten nunmehr ein geheimnisvoller Whistleblower an, der berichtete, er habe als Unteroffizier dem sagenumwobenen Stay Behind-Netzwerk der NATO angehört, landläufig auch als GLADIO bekannt. Man habe seinerzeit das trainiert, was die Bombenleger auch gemacht hätten: So habe man im Schatten des NATO-Manövers “Oesling 84” auch die Stay-Behind-Saboteure getestet. Die Übung sah vor, die regulären Ordnungskräfte, Soldaten etc. als sowjetische Besatzer zu betrachten und sich an diesen vorbeischleichen, um unentdeckt etwa an Hochspannungsmasten symbolisch rote Klebepunkte anbringen. Die Markierungen hätten “Bombe erfolgreich gelegt/Mast gesprengt”bedeutet. Die Saboteure seien von England aus im Tiefflug eingeflogen und mit dem Fallschirm abgesetzt worden – OSS/CIA-Style.

Wie das Luxemburger Tageblatt meldet, wurden von Premierminister Jean-Claude Juncker und Verteidigungsminister Jean-Marie Halsdorf mittlerweile in einer parlamentarischen Dringlichkeitsanfrage zusätzliche Informationen zu Stay Behind gefordert.

Stay Behind gehört allerdings nach wie vor zu den sensibelsten Geheimnissen, die es in der NATO-Welt gibt. Manche Regierungschefs wurden von ihren Militärs nicht einmal über die Existenz der hochgeheimen Netzwerke informiert. Offenbar ist das unheimliche Netzwerk sogar älter als die NATO und wurde von den Diensten parallel aufgebaut und unterhalten.

Platzt der Bombenleger-Prozess?

Das Verfahren wird in Luxemburg als “Jahrhundertprozess” bezeichnet. Als Zeugen geladen sind Jean-Claude Juncker, die Prinzen Jean und Guillaume sowie Ex-Statsminister Jacques Santer sowie der Justizminister und diverse Schattenmänner. Die Verfahrensdauer wird auf drei Monate veranschlagt, 90 Zeugen sollen vernommen werden. Als sei der Fall noch nicht skurril genug, so heißt der im Prozess agierende Staatsanwalt ausgerechnet Oswald – ein Omen dafür, dass die Monarchie nach Bauernopfern wie die beiden Polizisten verlangt?

Die Strafverteidiger forderten die Vertagung des Verfahrens. Der für sein Temperament bekannte Rechtsanwalt Gaston Vogel und seine Kollegin Lydie Lorang sparten nicht mit Kritik an den Behörden und beklagten die massiven Beweisverluste. Vogel veröffentlichte bereits letzte Woche einen offenen Brief an Premierminister Juncker.

Verteidiger Vogel ist vom Alibi des jagenden Prinzen keineswegs überzeugt. So gab der Zeuge an, den Prinzen um 3.30 Uhr in der Nähe des Tatorts gesehen zu haben, während das Alibi erst ab etwa 12 Uhr greift. Auch in den 1980er Jahren vermochte man die Distanz von 500 Kilometern innerhalb von etwa acht Stunden zu überwinden. Warum allerdings der Blaublütige persönlich vor Ort gewesen sein soll, ist unklar.

Geheimdienst-Wiki

Um die komplexe Angelegenheit zu illustrieren, haben Aktivisten inzwischen ein Wiki aufgesetzt und als Domain hierfür frech den Namen des Geheimdienstes SREL.lu gekapert. Auch eine Mindmap soll bei der Orientierung helfen.

Wer immer Mitte der 1980er im Großherzogtum Bomben gelegt haben mag, “d’Kommunisten” scheinen es nicht gewesen zu sein.

Markus Kompa 27.02.2013

Find this story at 27 February 2013

Copyright © 2013 Heise Zeitschriften Verlag

Luxemburgs Schattenkämpfer; Der Santer-Bericht zu “Stay behind”

Der Bericht aus Jahr 1990 zu dem Luxemburger “Stay behind”-Netzwerk.

(str) -Hausfrauen, Lehrer, Handwerker und Eisenbahner als mit Funkgeräten ausgerüstete Geheimagenten. Drei Kisten mit Waffen in einer Wiese begraben. Das könnten die Zutaten eines spannenden Spionageromans sein. Es sind aber die Details des Berichts von Ex-Premier Santer aus Jahr 1990 zu dem Luxemburger “Stay behind”-Netzwerk. Ein Bericht der wort.lu vorliegt.

Die Erwartungen waren sehr hoch gesteckt, als am 17. Dezember 1990 Premierminister Jacques Santer den parlamentarischen Verfassungsausschuss über das geheime “Stay Behind”-Netzwerk informierte. Wirklich viel verriet Santer damals nicht. Dennoch war es das erste Mal, dass überhaupt von offizieller Seite über diese geheime Struktur aufgeklärt wurde – und bislang auch zum letzen Mal.

Am Rande der “Affär Bommeleeër” sind die Diskussionen um “Stay Behind ” nun wieder aufgeflammt. Da verschiedene Abgeordnete die Aufklärungsarbeit Santers über “diese wichtige Seite der Luxemburger Geschichte” als unzureichend empfinden, könnte dieses Relikt des Kalten Krieges nun zum Politikum werden. Am Dienstag beauftragte der parlamentarische Justizausschuss den Verteidigungsausschuss, sich noch einmal mit dem Thema zu befassen.

In der Sitzung des Verfassungsausschusses Mitte Dezember 1990 beginnt Santer seine Erläuterungen indem er aus aus den Archiven des Geheimdienstes zitiert, dass 1952 ein “Comité Clandestin de Planning” (CCP) gegründet wird. Zur CCP gehören Luxemburg, Belgien, Frankreich, das Vereinigte Königreich und die Niederlande. Als 1958 die USA dazu kommen, wird die Organisation in Allied Coordination Comitee (ACC) umgetauft.

Der CCP untersteht dem militärischen strategischen NATO-Hauptquartier SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe). Die Aufgabe des CCP besteht darin, zu Friedenszeiten die Verbindung zwischen dem Hauptquartier der alliierten Streitkräfte und den nationalen Geheimdiensten herzustellen. In Luxemburg handelte es sich in der Nachkriegszeit um das “Deuxième Bureau de l’Etat Major de l’Armée” – dem auch “Stay Behind” untersteht. 1960 wird der “Service de Renseignement” (SREL) gegründet und übernimmt die alleinige Verantwortung für das “Stay Behind”-Netz.

Es ist ein geheimes Widerstandsnetzwerk, wie Santer erklärt. Obwohl es bereits 1952, zur Zeit des Korea-Krieges entsteht, wird es erst 1956 nach der Invasion Ungarns durch die Rote Armee aktiviert. Die von der NATO vorgegebenen Missionen bestehen aus drei Elementen: nachrichtendienstliche Aktivitäten, Einschleusen und Exfiltration sowie Aktionen.

Die Aktivitäten des Luxemburger “Stay Behind” haben sich jedoch auf die ersten beiden Aspekte beschränkt, betont Santer und fügt hinzu , dass es sich um ein Netzwerk aus Fluchthelfern handelt. Bei der “Infiltration” geht es auch um die Wiedereroberung des Landes im Falle einer Invasion. Santer präzisiert , dass es sich bei “Stay behind” um sogenannte Schläfer handelt, die nur zu Kriegszeiten und im Falle einer Invasion durch die Armeen des Warschauer Paktes aktiviert werden sollen. Obwohl das Netz von der Nato koordiniert wird, hätte es im Kriegsfall ausschließlich unter Luxemburger Befehlsgewalt gestanden.

Lehrer, Eisenbahner, Hausfrauen…

In Luxemburg hat es nie mehr als 12 “Stay Behind”-Agenten gegeben, erklärt Santer weiter. Vor der Auflösung der Struktur 1990 sind es nur neun Agenten . Bei diesen “Agenten” handelt es sich um Lehrer, Landwirte, Handwerker, Beamte, Ingenieure , Eisenbahner und Hausfrauen. Santer betont, dass diese Leute sich untereinander nicht kennen und dass daher nicht von einer Truppe oder einer Gruppe die Rede sein kann.

Im Norden des Landes sind es vor der Auflösung der Struktur im Jahr 1990 zwei Agenten aktiv, im Zentrum ebenfalls zwei, einer an der belgischen Grenze, an der deutschen Grenze zwei und an der französischen Grenze einer.

Rekrutiert wurden sie unter dem Versprechen, dass ihre Identität niemals aufgedeckt wird. Santer betont, dass er persönlich die Identität jedes Agenten überprüft habe und keiner von ihnen vorbestraft gewesen sei. Einige seien ehemalige Resistenzler . Santer besteht darauf, dass keiner der Agenten zur Armee oder zu den Sicherheitskräfte gehört.

Als Santer Altersangaben über die Agenten macht, spricht er wieder von zwölf Agenten. Drei von ihnen, sind älter als sechzig Jahre, vier Agenten im Alter zwischen 50 und 60 Jahren, drei Agenten zwischen 40 und 50 Jahren und zwei Agenten zwischen 30 und 40 Jahren.
Drei Kisten mit Waffen in einer Wiese begraben

Ihre Ausrüstung hat nur aus Funkgeräten bestanden, erklärt Santer . Diese seien dafür gedacht mit “Stay behind”-Strukturen im Ausland in Kontakt zu bleiben. 1973 wird in Luxemburg ein Waffenversteck für “Stay behind” angelegt: Drei Zinkbehälter werden in einer Wiese eingegraben. In jeder befinden sich zwei Maschinenpistolen, vier Pistolen, vier Granaten und 600 Schuss Neun-Millimeter -Munition. Allerdings, bekräftigt Santer, hat nur der Geheimdienst-Chef und nicht die Agenten Zugang zu den Kisten im Versteck.

Die einzige Aktivität des “Stay-Behind”-Netzwerkes ist die regelmäßige Überprüfung des Funkmaterials, die in Zusammenarbeit mit dem britischen Intelligence Sercive erledigt wird. Das seien nur Nachrichtendienstliche Übungen , betont Santer. Niemals haben “Stay Behind” Mitglieder an Sabotageübungen teilgenommen.

“Stay behind” werde zudem oft mit dem italienischen “Gladio-Netzwerk” verwechselt, das nicht nur in einer anderen Struktur organisiert gewesen sei, sondern auch andere Aufgaben gehabt hätte.

Im Gegensatz zum Luxemburger “Stay behind” hätte “Gladio” als paramilitärische Truppe funktioniert und zu deren Mission auch Sabotage gehörte. Zwischen “Gladio ” und dem Luxemburger “Stay behind” hätte es keinerlei Verbindungen gegeben.
Santer und Thorn nicht informiert

Santer erklärt ebenfalls, dass er seine Informationen nicht nur aus Gesprächen mit dem Geheimdienstchef bezieht, sondern auch seine Amtsvorgänger auf das Thema angesprochen habe. Er selbst sei nicht von seinem Vorgänger Pierre Werner in Kenntnis gesetzt worden. Auch Gaston Thorn wurde 1974 nicht über die Existenz eines “Stay Behind”-Netzwerkes in Kenntnis gesetzt. Thorn habe sich das damit erklärt , dass die Aktivitäten des Netzwerkes stets normal verlaufen sind.

Pierre Werner habe Santer gesagt, dass er 1962 über die Existenz des “Stay behind”-Netzwerkes informiert wurde, als dieses in den Zuständigkeitsbereich des SREL übergegangen sei. Das Netz habe niemals Probleme bereitet. Da die einzigen Aktivitäten des Netzwerkes darin bestanden hätten, Funksender zu überprüfen, und dabei stets alles ordnungsgemäß verlaufen sei, habe er es nicht für nötig befunden, sich weiter mit der Geheimorganisation zu beschäftigen.
Mission abgeschlossen

Die Diskussion um “Gladio und “Stay Behind” wird 1990 durch die Debatte um eine Reform des Geheimdienstes ausgelöst. Jacques Santer löst das “Stay behind “-Netzwerk wenige Wochen vor der Sitzung des Ausschusses auf, da das Netzwerk nach dem Zusammenbruch des Kommunismus keine Daseinsberechtigung mehr hat. Am 14. Oktober 1990 werden die Agenten über das Ende ihrer Mission informiert und müssen ihr Funkmaterial zurückgeben. Die Kisten mit den Waffen werden ausgegraben. Die Granaten und Munition werden im Militärdepot am Waldhof untergebracht. Die Schusswaffen sollen dem Militärmuseum in Diekirch zur Verfügung gestellt werden.

Der kommunistische Abgeordnete Änder Hoffmann, der als einziger für die Einsetzung einer Untersuchungskommission zu “Stay behind” stimmt, stellt zudem die Neutralität des Santer-Berichts in Frage. Dieser berufe sich ausschließlich auf Informationen des Geheimdienstes.

Diese Neutralitätsfrage liegt nun 18 Jahre später wieder auf dem Tisch. Denn am Rande der Bombenleger-Affäre sehen insbesondere die DP-Abgeordneten Flesch und Bettel Grund genug, noch einmal Nachforschungen über “Stay Behind ” anzustellen – zumindest um auch letzte Zweifel über eine eventuelle Verbindung zwischen den Attentaten und dem Netzwerk auszuräumen.

Veröffentlicht am 25.03.12 16:09 Vorlesen

Steve Remesch

Find this story at 25 March 2012

Das Bommeleeër-Dossier

© WORT.LU 2013

Chronologie der Anschläge Die Bommeleeër-Taten hielten in den 80er Jahren ganz Luxemburg in Atem. Die Serie umfasst 24 Sprengstoffanschläge von 1984 bis 1986.

wort.lu listet die wichtigsten Daten auf:

30. Mai und 2. Juni 1984

Die beiden ersten Explosionen ereignen sich am 30. Mai und am 2. Juni 1984 in Beidweiler, wo ein Mast der Cegedel gesprengt wird. Das benutzte Material stammt zweifelsfrei aus Helmsingen und Wasserbillig.

12. April 1985

Explosion in Bourscheid: Ein Weekend-Haus, das kurz zuvor an den Staat verkauft wurde, fällt ihr zum Opfer. Bis heute ist nicht eindeutig geklärt, ob das Attentat in die Serie passt, denn es wurde keine kriminalistische Analyse der Spuren und des Sprengstoffs vorgenommen.

27. April 1985

Um 2 Uhr nachts wird auf dem Postamt am hauptstädtischen Hauptbahnhof der erste Erpresserbrief aufgegeben. Darin heißt es: „We have space and time“. Übersetzt: Wir wählen Ort und Zeit aus. Und: Wir sind Herr und Meister.

28. April 1985

Um 23.50 Uhr wird die Serie, wie angekündigt, fortgesetzt und ein Cegedel-Mast auf Stafelter gerät ins Visier der Attentäter. Bemerkenswert: Alle Anschlagsorte liegen in der Nähe der Hauptstadt.

7. Mai 1985

23.50 Uhr: Der Cegedel-Mast auf Schlewenhof fällt einer Explosion zum Opfer – nur fünf Stunden nachdem beschlossen worden war, dass Cegedel, Regierung und Gendarmerie nicht auf die Forderung der Erpresser von 250 000 Dollar eingehen würden. Das Erpresserultimatum hätte eigentlich aber noch bis 10. oder 11. Mai gehen sollen.

8. Mai 1985

Zweiter Erpresserbrief: Geldübergabe wird für die Zeit des Papstbesuchs vom 14. bis 16. Mai angekündigt. Zustimmung soll per Anzeige im „Wort“ erfolgen.

14. Mai 1985

Dritter Erpresserbrief: „Fahren Sie nach Clerf, in einer Telefonzelle erhalten Sie dort weitere Instruktionen“. Ausgerechnet in der Zeit des Papstbesuchs, wo die „Force de l’ordre“ alle Hände voll zu tun hat. Der Polizeifunk des Nordens war für diese Zeit in das Zentrum verlegt, im Norden stand also keiner zur Verfügung …

25. Mai 1985

Attentat bei der Gendarmerie. Aber nicht auf das Kommando oder auf die „Brigade mobile“, sondern am Standort der Brigade Luxemburg, im Keller unter den Büros der beiden ermittelnden Beamten in diesem Dossier.

28. Mai 1985

Um 23.45 Uhr wird in Itzig ein Strommast gesprengt, der das Unternehmen Dupont de Nemours versorgt. Die Masten sind nummeriert, die von 31 bis 39 werden von der Securicor bewacht, der Pfosten 30 nicht und ausgerechnet der wird gesprengt. Und: 70 Meter neben dem Anschlagsort geht in einem Feld eine weitere Ladung hoch.

29. Mai 1985

Vierter Erpresserbrief an Cegedel. Er wirft die Frage auf, an wen sich die Attentäter eigentlich wenden – an die Cegedel oder an die Gendarmerie? Sie hätten sich schlechter benommen als eine Scoutstruppe, heißt es darin, das wäre Verrat. Ein versteckter Hinweis darauf, dass es Pfadfinder waren, die auf das erste Attentat aufmerksam wurden?

11. Juni 1985

Fünfter Erpresserbrief: Darin werden 750 000 Dollar gefordert. Die Geldübergabe sollte am selben Tag im Parkhaus am Theaterplatz stattfinden. Im fünften Untergeschoss. Kurios: Kameras überwachen Einfahrt, Ausfahrt und eben jenes fünftes Untergeschoss, um zu sehen, ob alles belegt ist. Ein Spiel?

12. Juni 1985

In einem Brief werfen die Erpresser den Behörden vor, sie hätten falsch gespielt, und sie listen minutiös auf, welche Polizeibeamten vor Ort waren – bei der anberaumten Geldübergabe. Sie sagen sogar, es wären ausländische Polizisten anwesend gewesen. Und die Informationen der Erpresser treffen zu!

23. Juni 1985

Attentat in Hollerich, am Nationalfeiertag, kurz nach dem Feuerwerk – mit hohem Täterrisiko.

5. Juli 1985

Einziges Attentat mit Dynamit, vielleicht aus Wasserbilliger Stollen, in Asselscheuer. Zone lag übrigens knapp außerhalb der Überwachungszone!

26. Juli 1985

Anschlag auf das Verwaltungsgebäude des „Luxemburger Wort“.

28. August 1985

Zwei Explosionen auf dem Glacis bei der Schobermesse. Polizei und Straßenbauverwaltung sind betroffen.

30. September 1985

Attentat auf Schwimmbad an dem Tag der Pensionierung von Colonel Wagner.

19. Oktober 1985

Attentat im „Palais de justice“. Im Visier: das Büro des zuständigen Untersuchungsrichters.

9. November 1985

Attentat am Findel, drei Minuten nach dem letzten Flug. Findel ist unbewacht, weil die Beamten für den Ministerrat auf Kirchberg abgezogen wurden.

10. November 1985

Taschenlampe-Explosion – mit Quecksilberschalter, der schon Tausende Male gebraucht wurde. So einen, wie man ihn in Spielautomaten findet.

30. November 1985

Attentat in Heisdorf.

2. Dezember 1985

„Sommet“ in Luxemburg. Schwachpunkt: Autobahn. Das ist gewusst, aber sie wird nicht gesperrt. Über 200 Polizisten sind im Einsatz, aber eine „Bombe“ kann trotzdem aus einem Auto gezündet werden. Resultat: Die Ordnungskräfte sehen nicht sehr glücklich aus …

17. Februar 1986

Nach langer Pause kommt es zu einem Anschlag auf das Haus des Notars Hellinckx. Es passt nicht ganz in die Serie, gehört aber dazu. Das Luxite beweist es.

25. März 1986

Attentat bei Colonel Wagner: An dem Abend läuft die Revue „Knuppefreed“ mit besonderem Sicherheitsdispositiv, doch dann geht die Ladung außerhalb dieses Bereichs hoch. So endet der Bombenzyklus.

Veröffentlicht am 25.01.12 17:11 Vorlesen

Find this story at 25 January 2012

© WORT.LU 2013

 

 

 

Luxemburger zweifeln an ihrem Geheimdienst

Der Luxemburger Geheimdienst Service de renseignement de l’État (SREL) ist im Zuge diverser Affären in die Kritik geraten, u.a. wegen des Abhörens eines Gespräches zwischen Premierminister Jean-Claude Juncker und Großherzog Henri. Letzterer geriet in Verlegenheit, nachdem der vormalige SREL-Chef Marco Mille behauptet hatte, der großherzogliche Hof unterhalte wohl gute Kontakte zum britischen Geheimdienst.

Laut einer Umfrage des Luxemburger “Journals” glauben nur 22% der Befragten dem Dementi des Hofmarschallamts. Die Befragten sind zudem wenig erbaut über die Tatsache, dass die Lëtzeburger Schlapphüte in den letzten Jahrzehnten 300.000 Karteikarten über Bürger, Ausländer und politische Parteien angelegt haben. Eine Mehrheit verlangt ein Einsichtsrecht in die Datenbanken und bezweifelt die Notwendigkeit eines Geheimdienstes, berichtet das Luxemburger Tagblatt. Mille war 2009 zu Siemens als Sicherheitschef gewechselt.

Misstrauen gegen Luxemburger Geheime produzierte vor allem die Bommeleeër-Affäre (“Bombenlegeraffäre”), bei der zwischen 1986 und 1987 mysteriöse Anschläge auf Strommasten verübt wurden. In den letzten Jahren wurden Hinweise bekannt, die auf eine Inszenierung durch Sicherheitskreise hindeuten. In diesem Zeitraum gab es auch in anderen NATO-Staaten bis heute ungeklärte Anschläge, die politisch links stehende Gruppen sowie die Umweltbewegung in Misskredit brachten. Inzwischen tritt ein parlamentarischer Untersuchungsausschuss an, um die “Funktions- und Arbeitsweise des Geheimdienstes seit seinem Bestehen” zu ergründen, berichtet das Luxemburger Wort.

Auch das deutsche parlamentarische Kontrollgremium (PKGr) für Geheimdienste will unter dem Eindruck der NSU-Morde und der Serie an Ermittlungsdesastern seine Arbeit intensivieren, die nach parteiübergreifender Auffassung völlig unzureichend ausgestaltet ist. Nach einer zweitägigen Klausur beklagte die erstmals entsandte FDP-Politikerin Gisela Piltz, effektive Kontrolle bedürfe mehr als einer Reihe von Abgeordneten, die in einem fensterlosen und abhörsicheren Raum zusammensäßen. Zudem ist geplant, die operative Arbeit des PKGr mit drei weiteren, besonders befugten Mitarbeitern stärken. Der frühere BGH-Richter Wolfgang Nešković, der bislang als eifrigstes Mitglied des parlamentarischen Kontrollgremiums galt, gehört diesem nicht mehr an. Nešković hatte nach Querelen die Linksfraktion verlassen.

Markus Kompa
23.12.2012

Find this story at 23 December 2012

Copyright © 2013 Heise Zeitschriften Verlag

»Gladio« auch in Luxemburg? Das geheime NATO-Netzwerk und ein Strafprozeß

Seit dem 25. Februar findet vor der 9. Kriminalkammer in Luxemburg ein spektakulärer Strafprozeß statt, der trotz seiner politischen Dimension in deutschen Medien fast keine Resonanz findet. Angeklagt sind in der »Affaire Bommeleeër« (Bombenleger) die beiden früheren Mitglieder der »Brigade mobile de la Gendarmerie« Marc Scheer und Jos Wilmes. Den Exbeamten werden unter anderem versuchter Mord und Brandstiftung in 20 Fällen in den Jahren 1984 und 1985 vorgeworfen. Die Verteidigung hat u. a. Premierminister Jean-Claude Juncker und Angehörige des großherzoglichen Hauses laden lassen. So ging es am gestrigen Donnerstag um ein Alibi des Prinzen Jean, der von einem Zeugen nach einem Attentat 1985 in der Nähe des Tatorts gesehen worden war.

Die heute 56 und 58 Jahre alten Angeklagten sollen unter anderem Masten des Stromversorgers Cegedel zerstört und das Instrumentenlandesystem des Luxemburger Flughafens außer Betrieb gesetzt haben. Sie sollen auch einen Anschlag auf das Gebäude der Zeitung Luxemburger Wort verübt und während eines EG-Gipfels eine Sprengladung vor dem Konferenzgebäude gezündet haben. Laut Staatsanwaltschaft verfügten die Täter über umfangreiche Detailkenntnisse der Arbeit von Polizei und Gendarmerie, wußten offenbar, wann welche Objekte bewacht wurden, und führten die Fahnder regelmäßig an der Nase herum. Alle Ermittlungen verliefen im Sande, bis RTL Letzebuerg 2004 die Sache wieder aufgriff. Inzwischen deutet vieles darauf hin, daß es sich um Taten der NATO-Geheimtruppe »Gladio« handelt. Sie steht im Verdacht, u.a. 1980 in die Attentate von Bologna und auf das Münchner Oktoberfest verwickelt gewesen zu sein. Am Mittwoch vergangener Woche führte die Verteidigung eine eidesstattliche Erklärung in das Verfahren ein. In ihr bezeugt der deutsche Historiker Andreas Kramer, daß sein Vater als Hauptmann der Bundeswehr und Agent des Bundesnachrichtendienstes »Gladio«-Operationsleiter für mehrere Länder gewesen sei. Als solcher habe er engen Kontakt zum damaligen Chef des luxemburgischen Geheimdienstes SREL, Charles Hoffmann, gepflegt. Dieser hat bisher jeden Zusammenhang der Attentatsserie mit »Gladio« oder dem SREL abgestritten.

22.03.2013 / Ausland / Seite 2Inhalt

Von Arnold Schölzel

Find this story at 22 March 2013

© junge Welt

Undercover: Police Officer Connected to “NATO 5” Case Still Spying on Protest in Chicago

The first time “Danny” (far right) officially ran as a CAM medic: March 18, 2012 at a protest to mark the anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war.
On March 27, Chicago teachers and their supporters – including parents, students and community residents – rallied against the largest mass public school closure in US history. News of the mobilization sparked huge public interest before the demonstration – including from an undercover police officer calling himself “Danny Edwards.”

The day before the big rally, “Danny” reached out in individual emails to fellow volunteer street medics he had met a year earlier after he took a 20-hour training with Chicago’s local street medic collective, Chicago Action Medical (CAM). CAM’s volunteer emergency medical technicians (EMTs), nurses, doctors and trained street medics provide emergency medical treatment at local protests.

His aim in reaching out: to learn more about the next day’s plans.

“Danny” – who admitted to us on May 6 that he is, in fact, a Chicago police officer – could have saved himself the trouble and his department the expense. After all, organizers had already coordinated directly with top CPD brass about their plans for the next day and widely promoted their intent to stage nonviolent civil disobedience.

After the CTU rally, “Danny” also tried to recruit at least one CAM volunteer street medic via email on April 30, the day before a May 1, 2013, immigrants’ rights march, to pair up with him as a partner. There were no takers, so he showed up alone at the rally sporting marked medic regalia.

His latest undercover sortie as a fake volunteer street medic bookends a hectic year for him.

The Paper Trail

“Danny” was a fixture at CAM events beginning in early March 2012, when he participated in a 20-hour introductory training for new street medics – a training he described in an email to CAM volunteer street medic Scott Mechanic as “great.”

May 1, 2012: “Danny Edwards” – posing with fellow Chicago Action Medical volunteers at their health care booth in Union Park, where street medics were volunteering to provide first aid and emergency health care for participants at the annual May Day rally and march. “Danny” – the only medic not smiling – is standing in front of the CAM banner.

The email address “Danny” used in that correspondence, which he did not sign by name, was pegged to the name of a Chicago police officer cited months later in court documents involved in undercover work around the NATO protests.

Less than half an hour after sending that initial email, “Danny” sent the first in a flurry of emails to Mechanic from a different email address, writing “let me know what going on so i can get involved (sic).”

“Danny’s” March 2012 foray into spying on CAM aligns with the date prosecutors say the Chicago Police Department (CPD) posted two other undercover agents who went by the street names “Mo” and “Nadia” on a 90-day temporary duty undercover assignment to Field Intelligence Team 7150. That team was tasked with infiltrating Occupy and anarchist groups in the run-up to the NATO Summit, according to court documents filed by Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez in April 2013.

Those two officers, “Mo” and “Nadia,” are also purported linchpins in the criminal cases against five activists known as the “NATO 5,” three of whom are scheduled to go to trial on NATO-related domestic terrorism charges this September.

The NATO prosecutors’ October 2012 Answer to Discovery lists this same police officer among the CPD officers, detectives and other police officials who may be called to testify in this fall’s upcoming trial. He is also mentioned in the NATO defendants’ February 25, 2013, Motion to Compel Discovery as “a CPD undercover officer related to this investigation.”

Busy Year for “Danny” – and Early Red Flags

Five days after he inadvertently emailed Scott Mechanic under his given name and scrambled to cover his tracks, “Danny” acted for the first time as a CAM street medic at a small permitted peace march on Chicago’s north side. The March 18, 2012 event was organized to mark the anniversary of the launch of the Iraq War in March 2003.

May 1, 2013: “Danny Edwards,” undercover Chicago police officer, at a May Day rally for immigrant rights in Chicago’s Union Park.
“Danny” ran again as a marked CAM street medic on April 7, 2012 at Occupy Chicago’s “Occupy Spring” event, also emailing Mechanic on April 26, 2012 about bringing a “friend” to an upcoming health workshop. On May 1, 2012, he volunteered as a marked CAM street medic at a May Day rally and march, where his refusal to follow CAM operational guidelines – reportedly abandoning his street medic partner to make a b-line for a group of young protesters wearing black clothes – began to raise real alarms with fellow street medics.

After “Danny’s” behavior on May Day, a number of veteran CAM volunteers – including Mechanic – moved immediately to isolate him from new and less experienced street medics, to monitor his behavior closely and to broadly urge the practice of good security culture.

But without a smoking gun, they were unwilling to expose him publicly. The chill from veteran street medics didn’t discourage “Danny” from continuing to reach out and show up to actions.

On May 11, a week and a half later and as local organizers were scrambling to find housing for out-of-town protesters traveling in for the demonstrations, he emailed Mechanic directly for information about housing that other groups or collectives might be offering. “I have a group of friends in need and I wanted some direction,” he wrote.

On May 20, 2012, at a large protest against the NATO Summit, CAM street medics demanded that he remove his medic markings after he again ignored CAM street operations protocols by deserting his partner to sprint after a group of protesters clad in black clothes.

“Danny” sent emails to individual members of CAM’s listserv – but almost never to the larger listserv – strategically for the next year, seeking information about upcoming demonstrations and meetings. The off-list queries continued to raise red flags with CAM members he contacted, some of whom had never met him and did not know who he was.

When we asked “Danny” at the 2013 May Day rally to confirm his name and identity as a CPD officer, he insisted he was “Danny Edwards” and claimed to be a friend of a local activist.

That’s not how the activist described “Danny” to CAM volunteers at a street medic training before the NATO protests last spring. At that training, he told CAM members that “Danny” had recently befriended him, and he raised concerns there about “Danny’s” interest in topics ranging from Molotov cocktails to property damage.

“NATO 5” Connection

According to court documents released in the months after the NATO Summit protests, “Danny”is one of the undercover officers at the heart of the “NATO 5” criminal cases. He’s mentioned in the pre-NATO Summit pre-emptive raid search warrant documents as “Undercover Officer C,” and is also cited by his given name in court documents for one of the NATO defendants, Sebastian “Sabi” Senakiewicz, as a potential trial witness.

We tried to question “Danny” about his undercover activities on May 6 at a house that had a sheet of paper with his given name and phone number taped to the front door. While he admitted he was, in fact, the named police officer he’d denied being just five days earlier, he declined to answer our questions.

“Danny’s” post-NATO activities raise a key question: Why keep an undercover officer in play as a volunteer street medic in a nonviolent health-care project almost a year after the NATO protests that ostensibly put him into motion as a police spy in the first place?

It’s virtually impossible to say from the official record. That’s because the CPD and Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez have fought tooth and nail in court for almost a year to prevent defense attorneys in the remaining NATO cases from learning more about the scope and character of police spying on political activity leading up to last year’s NATO Summit.

At a “NATO 3” status hearing on May 14, 2013, prosecutors again opposed disclosing information about the wider scope of police spying on Chicago’s activist groups (as they have before in official court filings) in the months leading up to the NATO Summit. Defense attorneys rebutted in open court – as they did in writing earlier in their April 30, 2013, “Reply to the State’s Response to Defendants’ Motion to Compel” – that this information remains directly relevant to the NATO cases because it would broaden the context of the arrests of the NATO 3 and the CPD’s pre-NATO spying efforts targeting the activist community.

Broader Context

Police spying in recent years has targeted peace groups, environmentalists and the Occupy movement, a focus on protest as a potential flashpoint of “terrorism” that sometimes has disastrous consequences. By way of example, in Boston, local police focused their attention on the political activism of local residents at the same time they missed the threat posed by the Boston Marathon bombers.

And law enforcement has also demonstrated a disturbing pattern of working undercover to create crime to prosecute crime. Notable cases like the “Cleveland 4” fit into a pattern that journalist Arun Gupta has described as law enforcement’s “war of entrapment against the Occupy movement.”

Law enforcement infiltration in Chicago in the run-up to the 2012 NATO Summit unfolded most publicly with the use of at least two undercover cops who went by the names “Mo” and “Nadia.”

Both were regular fixtures at a spring 2012 encampment to try to prevent the closure of the Woodlawn Mental Health Clinic on Chicago’s south side, one of six public mental health clinics slated for closure by city officials and hardly a flashpoint of “potential terrorist activity.” They also showed up at one point at an independent media center organized to cover the NATO protests and at numerous other documented locales in the two and a half months before the NATO Summit.

“Red Squad” 2.0 Rolling Back into Town?

Ongoing police spying a year after the NATO meeting by “Danny” – and potentially others – raises a real alarm among activists, including CAM street medics, whose national community traces its origins to the Medical Presence Project of the Medical Committee for Human Rights (MCHR).

MCHR was first formed in 1964 to provide medical assistance to the civil rights movement. Its Chicago-based volunteers, who also provided medical aid at protests organized by peace projects and student groups opposed to the Vietnam War, were among thousands of civilians spied on by the CPD’s notorious Red Squad.

“The CPD’s decision to plant an undercover police spy in Chicago Action Medical is outrageous, but sadly, comes as no surprise,” said CAM street medic Dick Reilly in an interview. “The CPD has a long and sordid history of surveillance and infiltration of labor, peace and social justice groups dating back to the 1886 railroading of the Haymarket defendants – efforts that led to the creation of Chicago’s infamous Red Squad. Over a hundred years later, the cops are clearly still at it.”

For Reilly, CAM’s ongoing infiltration threatens core freedoms that range from the privacy rights of the people they treat to police officials’ ongoing assault on dissent in the city.

“When the CPD targets a volunteer medical project like CAM – which seeks to provide basic first aid to people exercising their democratic rights and whose primary principle is to ‘do no harm’ – it underscores the lengths to which they’ll go to criminalize dissent, suppress resistance and pander to the agenda of the political and economic elites they actually serve and protect,” Reilly said.

The Chicago Red Squad’s abuses of basic constitutional rights were so egregious – targets included the Parent-Teachers’ Association and the League of Women Voters – that a federal court slapped the city with a consent decree in 1982 that expressly barred politically motivated police spying unless police could show at least some evidence of criminal intent on the part of the targets of their spying.

The city was finally able to win relief from the consent decree in January 2001, after arguing for years constitutional protections thwarted its ability to investigate gangs and “terrorism.”

The consent decree’s demise hasn’t kept the CPD out of hot water for spying on political projects, either, beginning as early as 2002. Were the old consent decree still in place, CAM members believe “Danny’s” undercover spying on their work over the past year would have been illegal.

McCarthy’s Spy-Ops Background at NYPD, Newark PD

Just before he was sworn in as Chicago’s new mayor in May of 2011, Rahm Emanuel – a former US Congressman and chief of staff for President Obama – announced the appointment of new police superintendent Garry McCarthy. Three months later, McCarthy created an intelligence-gathering unit tasked to perform “counter-terrorism” work in preparation for the May 2012 NATO meetings.

A career New York cop, McCarthy is no stranger to the use of systematic police spying.

The New York Police Department (NYPD) has a contentious track record in this arena, prompting the implementation of New York’s own version of Chicago’s Red Squad consent decree – the Handschu Decree – while McCarthy was climbing up the NYPD’s ranks to a senior command position.

It wasn’t long after he formally assumed the mantle of CPD superintendent in 2011 that McCarthy drew fire for allowing the latest iteration of New York’s police spy ring to operate in Newark, NJ, where he had served as police chief before taking the position as CPD’s top dog.

McCarthy also served as an NYPD commander when the police set up spy rings before the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City and during “CIA on the Hudson,” the joint NYPD/CIA project that was set up and run by former CIA Deputy Director for Operations David Cohen to “map the human terrain” of New York City’s Islamic community.

Targeting Street Medics

Volunteer street medics have historically been an attractive target for undercovers.

CAM street medic Scott Mechanic met “Anna,” before she was outed as a police infiltrator, an FBI informant who used her position as a street medic to befriend and entrap environmental activists. One of those activists, Eric McDavid, is serving a 20-year sentence in a case built around Anna’s testimony and her reported entrapment activities.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Mechanic was also a street medic volunteer at New Orleans’ Common Ground Collective, where he and dozens of other volunteer health-care providers ran into Brandon Darby, an agent provocateur and FBI informant at the heart of another entrapment case, this one against David McKay and Bradley Crowder.

“These kinds of informants and undercover police represent a real threat to activists, in no small part because they’re committed to manufacturing crime where none exists to terrorize the public and justify their abuses of our right to dissent,” said Mechanic. “This Chicago cop’s infiltration of our group raises real questions about police intrusion into protesters’ medical histories – and it’s a truly despicable example of exploiting people’s caregivers as part of the national campaign to criminalize dissent.”

Convergence of the War on Drugs, War on Terrorism

As a Chicago cop, the CPD officer who infiltrated CAM has worked on narcotics and gang cases, including as an undercover officer.

Given the growing conflation of the “War on Drugs” with the “War on Terrorism,” which is increasingly married to a War on Dissent, it’s not surprising that the Chicago police officer who infiltrated CAM would segue into COINTELPRO-style undercover work. By the 1990’s, the CPD was listing dissidents by alleged political affiliation in their gang database, in tandem with then-Mayor Richard M. Daley’s claim that the Red Squad Consent Decree shackled cops’ ability to investigate both gangs and “terrorism.”

Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, points to the delayed notice search warrants enabled by Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT Act – presented to the public as a counter-terrorism tool – as a key example of the War on Drugs’ convergence with the War on Terrorism.

“Both the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism have long represented cash cows for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, from the FBI all the way down to local police departments,” Buttar said in an interview. “Beyond the serial corruption of agencies pimping public fears to inflate their budgets, many particular powers claimed as necessary for one ‘war’ are actually used more in the other.”

The Chicago Police Department did not respond to our phone calls or emails about this story.

Tuesday, 21 May 2013 09:55
By Steve Horn and Chris Geovanis, Truthout | Report

Find this story at 21 May 2013

© 2012 Truthout

The NATO 5: Manufactured Crimes Used to Paint Political Dissidents as Terrorists

A high-stakes game is being played in the United States today called, “To Catch a Terrorist.” The public need not worry, though, as the risks are surprisingly low. In this game, the police claim to prevent nefarious terrorist plots, while in reality they’re taking credit for foiling the same victimless crimes they themselves manufacture. This deceitful strategy is used primarily on Muslims and Arab-Americans, but a string of recent cases shows how political dissidents are also being entrapped, both figuratively and literally.

Last year, Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez dusted off a rarely used 11-year-old Illinois State terrorism statute and, with great fanfare, charged several dissidents with crimes of terrorism on the eve of a national political protest. The NATO 5, as they became known, have since garnered widespread support in Chicago, across the country, and around the world.

This week marks a dramatic shift in their lengthy prosecution. Attorneys for three of the defendants, most of whom are members of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), will be filing briefs today, January 25th in order to challenge the constitutionality of the state terrorism statute under which four of the activists were originally charged. If the court finds the law to be unconstitutional, the three highest profile cases could go to trial in September with no terrorism charges, fewer felonies to defend against, and facing a far less ominous sentence than the current 40 years in prison.

* * *

Wednesday, May 16th wasn’t particularly memorable, except that it fell three days prior to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit, a National Special Security Event (NSSE) held in Chicago from May 19th-21st. It was the first time in 13 years that NATO member states had met on U.S. soil, well before the 9/11 attacks, and the Obama administration funneled millions of federal taxpayer dollars into a massive “security” apparatus to ensure a seamless summit.

Ever since the NSSE designation was established by President Clinton in 1998, it has been synonymous with heavy surveillance and infiltration of political groups, police brutality, preemptive raids and mass arrests. The NATO summit in Chicago last spring would be no exception.

In the dark of night with guns drawn, the police used “no-knock” search warrants to break down the doors of an apartment building in the Bridgeport district of Chicago at approximately 11:30 pm that Wednesday. Unbeknownst to the thousands of anti-NATO activists in the city at the time, and members of the local NLG chapter which was providing legal support for the demonstrations, the police arrested nine activists, seizing computers, cell phones, political literature and other personal belongings from the building. Police also searched neighboring apartments and questioned residents, allegedly repeatedly calling one of the tenants a “Commie faggot.”

The Chicago Police Department (CPD) refused to acknowledge they had arrested anyone in Bridgeport that night, let alone divulge where they were being held. It wasn’t until the following afternoon that NLG attorneys determined nine activists had been taken to the Organized Crime Division of the CPD. Within 72 hours, six of the nine were released without charges.

On Saturday, the first day of the NATO summit, the three remaining activists were brought before Cook County Judge Edward Harmening on charges of possessing an incendiary device, material support for terrorism, and conspiracy to commit terrorism. The prosecutor wasted no time in labeling the defendants as “self-proclaimed anarchists,” as if to inherently equate thought crime and political ideology with criminal activity or terrorism, though Assistant State’s Attorney Matthew Thrun provided no evidence to substantiate his hyperbole. Thrun accused the three defendants — Brian Jacob Church, who was 20 at the time, and Jared Chase and Brent Betterly, who were both 24 — with preparing to commit “terrorist acts of violence and destruction directed against different targets in protest to the NATO summit”:

Specifically, plans were made to destroy police cars and attack four CPD stations with destructive devices, in an effort to undermine the police response to the conspirators’ other planned action for the NATO summit. Some of the proposed targets included the Campaign Headquarters of U.S. President Barack Obama, the personal residence of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel (sic), and certain downtown financial institutions.

Although no evidence of the allegations was provided, Assistant State’s Attorney Thrun asked the court to impose a bond of $5 million for each defendant. Judge Harmening rejected his request, but was apparently convinced enough by the State’s proffer to impose an equally unreasonable amount of $1.5 million bond each. The prosecutor and judge likely reasoned that such a prohibitively high bond would keep the three defendants imprisoned until trial. They were right. Church, Chase, and Betterly have been held in Cook County Jail for more than eight months now, with their trial currently scheduled to begin on September 16, 2013, more than a year after they were arrested.

Shortly after tracking down Church, Chase, and Betterly, the Guild’s legal team discovered two more activists — Sebastian Senakiewicz and Mark Neiweem — who were also surreptitiously arrested on terrorism-related charges. Senakiewicz, 24, was arrested at his Chicago home the day after the Bridgeport raid and charged with falsely making a terrorist threat, another felony under the State’s 2001 terrorism statute. Neiweem, a 28-year-old local activist, was arrested the same day, but in a far more sensationalized way. In broad daylight, he was snatched by numerous undercover police officers from Michigan Avenue, one of the busiest streets in the city, undoubtedly aimed at inducing fear in those witnessing the aggressive apprehension. Neiweem was slapped with felony solicitation and attempted possession of an incendiary device, but was not charged under the State’s terrorism statute as the others were.

NLG attorneys representing Senakiewicz and Neiweem argued at their bond hearing that they were denied their Constitutional due process rights by being refused a hearing within 48 hours. Senakiewicz was allegedly held for 68 hours without seeing a judge or being able to access a phone or his attorney, who finally got to visit Senakiewicz only minutes before his bond hearing. Neiweem was allegedly held for 66 hours before getting a hearing, and was denied medical treatment in detention. According to the NLG, on several occasions Neiweem was forced to choose between seeing his attorney and going to the hospital.

Once before a judge, the State’s Attorney painted Senakiewicz and Neiweem as violent criminals and convinced the court to impose similarly high bonds of $750,000 and $500,000 respectively. Unable to raise sufficient funds, Senakiewicz and Neiweem also remain incarcerated at Cook County Jail.

But the terrorism-related charges weren’t the only threads connecting the NATO 5 cases together. At least two undercover Chicago police officers are also believed to have been integral to each defendant’s arrest and prosecution. Shortly after the Bridgeport raid, Occupy Chicago activists began piecing together a CPD spying operation that had lasted for months before the NATO summit. As early as March, two assumed activists who went by the names “Mo” and “Gloves” began working with the Occupy Chicago movement. On April 13th, at least one of them was arrested with a small group of Occupy Chicago activists, who had held a demonstration with STOP (Southside Together Organizing for Power) in order to keep open the Woodlawn Mental Health Clinic, which had been scheduled for closure by Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

By the time Church, Chase and Betterly arrived in Chicago around May Day, Mo and Gloves had fully ingratiated themselves in the ranks of the Occupy movement and were supposedly involved in helping plan the NATO demonstrations. By contrast, the three activists from Florida were unfamiliar with the political terrain in Chicago and, more than most, were vulnerable to manipulation by two unsuspected undercover cops.

While little is publicly known about the interactions between Church, Chase, and Betterly and the infiltrators, we do know that Mo and Gloves were arrested with the nine activists the night of the Bridgeport raid. For the past six months, defense attorneys have been poring over trillions of bytes of recorded and written information, an overwhelming amount of data that was dumped on them by the prosecution, thereby significantly complicating and hampering the discovery process.

Of course, that’s part of the game… hiding the ball in plain sight, especially if the ingredients of entrapment are present. The defense wants to know how instructive Mo and Gloves might have been in getting the three to engage in the alleged criminal behavior. Did the undercover cops or their federal counterparts instigate the idea to use Molotov cocktails? How dependent were the three activists on Mo and Gloves to execute the plan? Answers to these questions would better enable the attorneys for Church, Chase, and Betterly to mount an entrapment defense, but by contrast the lack of answers will make that effort much more difficult.

To successfully assert an entrapment defense, the accused must show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were induced or coerced to commit the crime. By no means is this easy to do in a court of law. In fact, no terrorism charges since 9/11 have been beaten based on an entrapment defense, though there have been numerous cases involving undercover police and paid informants.

Three activists were charged with federal terrorism-related crimes during the 2008 Republican convention protests in St. Paul for possession of unused Molotov cocktails. And, in advance of May Day protests last year, five Occupy Cleveland activists were arrested and charged with attempting to blow up a bridge with fake explosives, supplied by the FBI. In each of these cases, paid FBI informants cultivated relationships with activists in order to carry out plans that would never have been hatched or developed without law enforcement participation.

The entrapment defense, however, opens the door for prosecutors to argue that Church, Chase, and Betterly had the propensity to commit the crime. And, while the State’s Attorney must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the three were predisposed, that open door is still a serious concern for the defense.

With the discovery process scheduled to wrap up by February 25th, the defense is continuing to push for more information, especially related to the federal government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is mentioned in the State’s Attorney’s proffer and the defense wants to know the extent of the agency’s involvement. The FBI is commonly integral to these types of criminal investigations, as the lead counter-intelligence agency for NSSEs. However, the FBI chose not to bring federal charges and has tried to downplay its involvement in the case.

Right now, though, the focus for the defense is challenging the IL State terrorism statute, 720 ILCS 5/29D. Indicating early on that it intended to question the basis of the charges being brought by the State’s Attorney, the defense is now preparing to file its initial brief today, January 25th. Attorneys will argue that the terrorism statute is so vague as to be unconstitutional on its face and as applied against their clients. The goal of the legal challenge is not only to dismiss terrorism charges against the NATO defendants, but also to prevent the State’s Attorney from using a flawed criminal statute against others in the future.

“The State’s Attorney is using sensational terrorism charges to justify the extensive investigation against Occupy Chicago, including months of infiltration as well as this expensive and ongoing prosecution,” said Sarah Gelsomino, who is representing Church as an attorney with the People’s Law Office. “We intend to show that the State’s terrorism statute is bad law that should be stricken.”

The State’s Attorney will have until February 15th to reply to the defendants’ challenge. Cook County Judge Thaddeus L. Wilson, who is presiding over the case, is expected to rule some time after February 25th, when the defense files its final brief in the pre-trial challenge. If the IL State terrorism statute is found to be unconstitutional, either facially or as applied, the defendants’ highest-level felonies could be thrown out. However, that would not necessarily mean their cases would be dismissed entirely. When Church, Chase, and Betterly were finally indicted by grand jury on June 12th, the State’s Attorney had tacked on eight more felonies, including additional counts of possession of an incendiary device, attempted arson, solicitation to commit arson, conspiracy to commit arson and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon, for a total of eleven charges each. Prosecutors have been known to overcharge in criminal cases as a means of getting at least some of the charges to stick. It’s difficult to deny that such a strategy is being used in this case.

Though their cases and situations are different than the three most seriously charged, Senakiewicz and Neiweem are getting the same level of support from activists in Chicago and elsewhere around the country. Neiweem is a local activist who has been targeted before by police for his lawful political activity. On at least one occasion since his incarceration, Neiweem allegedly has been badly beaten and hospitalized by Cook County Sheriff jail guards, and allegedly has been repeatedly held in isolation. Senakiewicz, an activist and Polish immigrant living in Chicago who was facing up to 15 years in prison, accepted a plea bargain in November, in which he agreed to a single terrorism-related felony, and a 4-year prison sentence. Although the prosecution led Senakiewicz to believe he would only have to serve a 120-day sentence in an out-of-county “boot camp” for non-violent offenders, he was ultimately ineligible for the program and will be forced to serve the entire sentence. Supporters also fear his immediate deportation upon release.

“Honestly, how serious was this case?” asked Guild attorney Jeff Frank, who represented Senakiewicz (also known as “Sabi”) with fellow NLG attorney Melinda Power. “Sabi is guilty of imprudent language,” said Frank. “That’s hardly grounds to extract a guilty plea for a serious felony, but that’s how Ms. Alvarez has chosen to spend the taxpayers’ resources.”

So, why were the NATO 5 arrested in such a spectacular way, just days before a controversial summit in Chicago? And, why are they being used as pawns in a high-stakes game of “To Catch a Terrorist?” Maybe the answers partly lie in the questions.

The motivations are actually just beneath the surface. The State’s Attorney’s aforementioned need to justify the investigation, infiltration and prosecution of the NATO 5 is likely a primary impulse. The tactic of preemptive police raids, a common trademark of NSSE law enforcement operations used to chill imminent protest activity, cannot be discounted. But, there is also a coordinated effort by local and federal officials to perpetuate a billion-dollar “protection racket,” in which law enforcement uses an aggressive counter-terrorism approach to both instill fear in the public and then, after solving the “crime,” induce the perception of safety. It’s also reasonable to assume that the NATO terrorism cases are an extension of the ongoing efforts to monitor and undermine the Occupy Wall Street movement. Perhaps there are elements of each in the effort to prosecute the NATO 5.

Regardless of the motivations, the NATO 5 case is indicative of a growing trend in law enforcement strategies used during political demonstrations: entrapping dissidents in manufactured terrorism crimes. As Glenn Greenwald recently wrote in the Guardian:

The most significant civil liberties trend of the last decade, in my view, is the importation of War on Terror tactics onto U.S. soil, applied to U.S. citizens… It should be anything but surprising that the FBI — drowning in counter-terrorism money, power and other resources — will apply the term ’terrorism’ to any group it dislikes and wants to control and suppress.

Disclosure: Kris Hermes is a member of the National Lawyers Guild.

May 24, 2013
Posted: 01/25/2013 4:01 pm

Find this story at 25 May 2013

Copyright © 2013 TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc.

‘Common practice’ for cops to use dead kids IDs; Shocking … cops used dead children’s identities

POLICE have admitted it was “common practice” for undercover officers to adopt the identities of dead children for aliases in the 1980s – but said they had no idea exactly how many times the sick tactic was used.

Despite a number of requests from relatives of dead children, Chief Constable Mick Creedon said none of the people affected had been told yet.

He also admitted no arrests had been made and no officers faced disciplinary proceedings.

The Derbyshire police boss said: “No families of children whose identities have been used have been contacted and informed.

“No answer either positive or negative has yet been given in relation to these inquiries from families.”

Commenting on the continuing Operation Herne investigation, he said the issue is “very complicated and mistakes could put lives in jeopardy”.

Keith Vaz MP, Home Affairs Select Committee chairman, has demanded all affected families be contacted immediately.

Operation Herne – a probe into undercover policing by the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstrations Squad – was set up after PC Mark Kennedy posed as an environmental protestor and had a sexual relationship with an activist.

A number of men and women are suing the Met over alleged intimate relationships with undercover cops.

The investigation, which has 23 officers and ten police staff working on it, has so far cost £1.25million and is expected to cost a further £1.66million over the next year.

By KAREN MORRISON
Published: 17th May 2013

Find this story at 17 May 201

© News Group Newspapers Limited

 

 

The ex-FBI informant with a change of heart: ‘There is no real hunt. It’s fixed’

Craig Monteilh describes how he pretended to be a radical Muslim in order to root out potential threats, shining a light on some of the bureau’s more ethically murky practices

Craig Monteilh: ‘It is all about entrapment.’ Photograph: The Washington Post

Craig Monteilh says he did not balk when his FBI handlers gave him the OK to have sex with the Muslim women his undercover operation was targeting. Nor, at the time, did he shy away from recording their pillow talk.

“They said, if it would enhance the intelligence, go ahead and have sex. So I did,” Monteilh told the Guardian as he described his year as a confidential FBI informant sent on a secret mission to infiltrate southern Californian mosques.

It is an astonishing admission that goes to the heart of the intelligence surveillance of Muslim communities in America in the years after 9/11. While police and FBI leaders have insisted they are acting to defend America from a terrorist attack, civil liberties groups have insisted they have repeatedly gone too far and treated an entire religious group as suspicious.

Monteilh was involved in one of the most controversial tactics: the use of “confidential informants” in so-called entrapment cases. This is when suspects carry out or plot fake terrorist “attacks” at the request or under the close supervision of an FBI undercover operation using secret informants. Often those informants have serious criminal records or are supplied with a financial motivation to net suspects.

In the case of the Newburgh Four – where four men were convicted for a fake terror attack on Jewish targets in the Bronx – a confidential informant offered $250,000, a free holiday and a car to one suspect for help with the attack.

In the case of the Fort Dix Five, which involved a fake plan to attack a New Jersey military base, one informant’s criminal past included attempted murder, while another admitted in court at least two of the suspects later jailed for life had not known of any plot.

Such actions have led Muslim civil rights groups to wonder if their communities are being unfairly targeted in a spying game that is rigged against them. Monteilh says that is exactly what happens. “The way the FBI conducts their operations, It is all about entrapment … I know the game, I know the dynamics of it. It’s such a joke, a real joke. There is no real hunt. It’s fixed,” he said.

But Monteilh has regrets now about his involvement in a scheme called Operation Flex. Sitting in the kitchen of his modest home in Irvine, near Los Angeles, Monteilh said the FBI should publicly apologise for his fruitless quest to root out Islamic radicals in Orange County, though he does not hold out much hope that will happen. “They don’t have the humility to admit a mistake,” he said.

Monteilh’s story sounds like something out of a pulp thriller. Under the supervision of two FBI agents the muscle-bound fitness instructor created a fictitious French-Syrian alter ego, called Farouk Aziz. In this disguise in 2006 Monteilh started hanging around mosques in Orange County – the long stretch of suburbia south of LA – and pretended to convert to Islam.

He was tasked with befriending Muslims and blanket recording their conversations. All this information was then fed back to the FBI who told Monteilh to act like a radical himself to lure out Islamist sympathizers.

Yet, far from succeeding, Monteilh eventually so unnerved Orange County’s Muslim community that that they got a restraining order against him. In an ironic twist, they also reported Monteilh to the FBI: unaware he was in fact working undercover for the agency.

Monteilh does not look like a spy. He is massively well built, but soft-spoken and friendly. He is 49 but looks younger. He lives in a small rented home in Irvine that blends into the suburban sprawl of southern California. Yet Monteilh knows the spying game intimately well.

By his own account Monteilh got into undercover work after meeting a group of off-duty cops working out in a gym. Monteilh told them he had spent time in prison in Chino, serving time for passing fraudulent checks.

It is a criminal past he explains by saying he was traumatised by a nasty divorce. “It was a bad time in my life,” he said. He and the cops got to talking about the criminals Monteilh had met while in Chino. The information was so useful that Monteilh says he began to work on undercover drug and organised crime cases.

Eventually he asked to work on counter-terrorism and was passed on to two FBI handlers, called Kevin Armstrong and Paul Allen. These two agents had a mission and an alias ready-made for him.

Posing as Farouk Aziz he would infiltrate local mosques and Islamic groups around Orange County. “Paul Allen said: ‘Craig, you are going to be our computer worm. Our guy that gives us the real pulse of the Muslim community in America’,” Monteilh said.

The operation began simply enough. Monteilh started hanging out at mosques, posing as Aziz, and explaining he wanted to learn more about religion. In July, 2006, at the Islamic Center of Irvine, he converted to Islam.

Monteilh also began attending other mosques, including the Orange County Islamic Foundation. Monteilh began circulating endlessly from mosque to mosque, spending long days in prayer or reading books or just hanging out in order to get as many people as possible to talk to him.

“Slowly I began to wear the robes, the hat, the scarf and they saw me slowly transform and growing a beard. At that point, about three or four months later, [my FBI handlers] said: ‘OK, now start to ask questions’.”

Those questions were aimed at rooting out radicals. Monteilh would talk of his curiosity over the concepts of jihad and what Muslims should do about injustices in the world, especially where it pertained to American foreign policy.

He talked of access to weapons, a possible desire to be a martyr and inquired after like-minded souls. It was all aimed at trapping people in condemning statements. “The skill is that I am going to get you to say something. I am cornering you to say “jihad”,” he said.

Of course, the chats were recorded.

In scenes out of a James Bond movie, Monteilh said he sometimes wore a secret video recorder sewn into his shirt. At other times he activated an audio recorder on his key rings.

Monteilh left his keys in offices and rooms in the mosques that he attended in the hope of recording conversations that took place when he was not there. He did it so often that he earned a reputation with other worshippers for being careless with his keys. The recordings were passed back to his FBI handlers at least once a week.

He also met with them every two months at a hotel room in nearby Anaheim for a more intense debriefing. Monteilh says he was grilled on specific individuals and asked to view charts showing networks of relationships among Orange County’s Muslim population.

He said the FBI had two basic aims. Firstly, they aimed to uncover potential militants. Secondly, they could also use any information Monteilh discovered – like an affair or someone being gay – to turn targeted people into becoming FBI informants themselves.

None of it seemed to unnerve his FBI bosses, not even when he carried out a suggestion to begin seducing Muslim women and recording them.

At one hotel meeting, agent Kevin Armstrong explained the FBI attitude towards the immense breadth of Operation Flex – and any concerns over civil rights – by saying simply: “Kevin is God.”

Monteilh’s own attitude evolved into something very similar. “I was untouchable. I am a felon, I am on probation and the police cannot arrest me. How empowering is that? It is very empowering. You began to have a certain arrogance about it. It is almost taunting. They told me: ‘You are an untouchable’,” he said.

But it was not always easy. “I started at 4am. I ended at 9.30pm. Really, it was a lot of work … Farouk took over. Craig did not exist,” he said. But it was also well paid: at the peak of Operation Flex, Monteilh was earning more than $11,000 a month.

But he was wrong about being untouchable.

Far from uncovering radical terror networks, Monteilh ended up traumatising the community he was sent into. Instead of embracing calls for jihad or his questions about suicide bombers or his claims to have access to weapons, Monteilh was instead reported to the FBI as a potentially dangerous extremist.

A restraining order was also taken out against him in June 2007, asking him to stay away from the Islamic Center of Irvine. Operation Flex was a bust and Monteilh had to kill off his life as Farouk Aziz.

But the story did not end there. In circumstances that remain murky Monteilh then sued the FBI over his treatment, claiming that they abandoned him once the operation was over.

He also ended up in jail after Irvine police prosecuted him for defrauding two women, including a former girlfriend, as part of an illegal trade in human growth hormone at fitness clubs. (Monteilh claims those actions were carried out as part of another secret string operation for which he was forced to carry the can.)

What is not in doubt is that Monteilh’s identity later became public. In 2009 the FBI brought a case against Ahmad Niazi, an Afghan immigrant in Orange County.

The evidence included secret recordings and even calling Osama bin Laden “an angel”. That was Monteilh’s work and he outed himself to the press to the shock of the very Muslims he had been spying on who now realised that Farouk Aziz – the radical they had reported to the FBI two years earlier – had in fact been an undercover FBI operative.

Now Monteilh says he set Niazi up and the FBI was trying to blackmail the Afghani into being an informant. “I built the whole relationship with Niazi. Through my coercion we talked about jihad a lot,” he said. The FBI’s charges against Niazi were indeed later dropped.

Now Monteilh has joined an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit against the FBI. Amazingly, after first befriending Muslim leaders in Orange County as Farouk Aziz, then betraying them as Craig Monteilh, he has now joined forces with them again to campaign for their civil liberties.

That has now put Monteilh’s testimony about his year undercover is at the heart of a fresh legal effort to prove that the FBI operation in Orange County unfairly targeted a vulnerable Muslim community, trampling on civil rights in the name of national security.

The FBI did not respond to a request from the Guardian for comment.

It is not the first time Monteilh has shifted his stance. In the ACLU case Monteilh is now posing as the sorrowful informant who saw the error of his ways.

But in previous court papers filed against the Irvine Police and the FBI, Monteilh’s lawyers portrayed him as the loyal intelligence asset who did sterling work tackling the forces of Islamic radicalism and was let down by his superiors.

In those papers Monteilh complained that FBI agents did not act speedily enough on a tip he gave them about a possible sighting of bomb-making materials. Now Monteilh says that tip was not credible.

Either way it does add up to a story that shifts with the telling. But that fact alone goes to the heart of the FBI’s use of such confidential informants in investigating Muslim communities.

FBI operatives with profiles similar to Monteilh’s – of a lengthy criminal record, desire for cash and a flexibility with the truth – have led to high profile cases of alleged entrapment that have shocked civil rights groups across America.

In most cases the informants have won their prosecutions and simply disappeared. Monteilh is the only one speaking out. But whatever the reality of his year undercover, Monteilh is almost certainly right about one impact of Operation Flex and the exposure of his undercover activities: “Because of this the Muslim community will never trust the FBI again.”

Paul Harris in Irvine, California
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 20 March 2012 16.50 GMT

Find this story at 20 March 2012

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Editor of The Progressive Calls for Eric Holder to Resign over Spying on Press, Occupy Protesters

As the Obama administration faces criticism for the Justice Department’s spying on journalists and the IRS targeting of right-wing organizations, newly released documents show how the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and local police forces partnered with corporations to spy on Occupy protesters in 2011 and 2012. Detailed in thousands of pages of records from counter terrorism and law enforcement agencies, the spying monitored the activists’ online usage and led to infiltration of their meetings. One document shows an undercover officer was dispatched in Arizona to infiltrate activists organizing protests around the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the secretive group that helps corporate America propose and draft legislation for states across the country. We’re joined by Matt Rothschild of The Progressive, who tackles the surveillance in his latest article, “Spying on Occupy Activists: How Cops and Homeland Security Help Wall Street.”

Watch Part Two of interview here
Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We end our show with a look at newly revealed documents showing how police partnered with corporations to monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy have obtained thousands of pages of records from counterterrorism and law enforcement agencies that detail how so-called “fusion centers” monitored the Occupy Wall Street movement over the course of 2011 and 2012. These fusion centers are comprised of employees from municipal, county and federal counterterrorism and homeland security entities, as well as local police departments, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

The documents show how fusion center personnel spied on Occupy protesters, monitored their Facebook accounts, and infiltrated their meetings. One document showed how the Arizona fusion center dispatched an undercover officer to infiltrate activist groups organizing protests around the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, the secretive group that helps corporate America propose and draft legislation for states across the country. The undercover officer apparently worked for the benefit of the private entity ALEC despite being on the public payroll.

AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! reached out to the Phoenix Police Department to join us on the show, but they declined our request. Sergeant Trent Crump in the media relations department said in an email, quote, “Occupy Phoenix presented itself with a great deal of civil unrest over a long period of time. We monitored available Intel all the time, as it is used for Intel-driven policing. Intel dictated resources and response tactics to address, mitigate, and manage this ongoing activity which was very fluid and changing day-to-day. This approach ensured that citizens can exercise their civil rights, while we protect the community at the same time,” they said.

Well, for more, we go to Matt Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive magazine, wrote the cover story for the June issue of the magazine, “Spying on Occupy Activists: How Cops and Homeland Security Help Wall Street,” the piece drawing heavily on the documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and DBA Press. Matt Rothschild is also the author of You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression.

Matt, welcome to Democracy Now! Just lay out what you have found.

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Hey, Amy. Thanks for having me on.

Yeah, I mean, these documents from the Center for Media and Democracy and DBA Press show that law enforcement and Homeland Security have equated protesters, left-wing protesters, as terrorists. They have diverted enormous amounts of resources from counterterrorism efforts to spy on these local protesters, and then they’ve collaborated with the private sector, some of the very institutions—banks—that these protesters were aiming at. And as you read in that statement from the Phoenix Police Department, the effort was to mitigate these protests. I mean, why is law enforcement, why is Homeland Security, in the business of mitigating protests?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I want to go to a response that we received from the Phoenix Police Department when we reached them for comment. And they said that they were not treating Occupy protesters as potential terrorists. They said, “[W]e are an all hazards incident management team, we have gathered information at all types of events [such as] Superbowl, World Series, SB 1070 protest etc.” So can you say how it is that their monitoring of Occupy protesters differed qualitatively from the other events that the Phoenix Police Department named?

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Sure. Well, they’re using resources from the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center, the Arizona fusion center, and they’re using Homeland Defense personnel in the Phoenix Police Department to track Occupy activists. So, it’s a little disingenuous of them to say they’re not treating these protesters as terrorists when they’re using their own anti-terrorist personnel to spend a lot of time simply tracking these activists. One of the police officers who was on the Homeland Defense Bureau of the Phoenix Police Department said she was primarily spending her time tracking Occupy activists on social media.

AMY GOODMAN: We also asked the Phoenix police if law enforcement is infiltrating Occupy meetings. And he replied, quote, “Infiltrate? No. Attend open meetings? Yes.” Democracy Now! also asked Trent Crump if law enforcement tracked Occupy activists online. He replied, “Yes, we gather intel on a number of social media sites regularly.” So, what about this? And also, this issue of law enforcement monitoring the protests against ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, when we asked him this, he said, “Yes, public safety.” Your response?

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, they not only monitored the ALEC protests in late November 2011, but they also sent a face sheet to the security personnel for ALEC, a face sheet of the faces and names and identities of Occupy protesters who have been doing some activism in the Phoenix area, to make the ALEC security personnel aware of who may be coming to their protests. They were also tracking—

AMY GOODMAN: So the police are working with the companies and the organizations.

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Absolutely. Yeah, they were working with security for the American Legislative Exchange Council. They were also letting security know when Jesse Jackson was going to be in town to join an Occupy protest and an ALEC protest. Is that really their job to be passing information on to these private entities?

And then, with some of the bank protests that Occupy Phoenix was planning, they were giving downtown banks all sorts of information. “Give downtown banks everything they need.” That was one internal memo from the Phoenix Police Department, when it was a day of protest against these banks and Occupy was urging the bank customers to cut up their credit cards from these banks. And which banks are we talking about? We’re talking about Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Chase—some of the very targets that Occupy had been protesting against. So, the question is: Who are the police department working for? Are they working for citizens? Are they working for the private sector? Are they working for the banks?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you put—Matt Rothschild, can you put this in a wider historical context? Is this kind of surveillance unprecedented in the U.S.? And what accounts for its occurrence during Occupy in the way that you describe?

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, unfortunately, it’s not unprecedented. There’s a terrible history of law enforcement and the FBI spying on left-wing activists, going back to the COINTELPRO program of the FBI in the ’60s and ’70s, where they infiltrated the Black Panther movement and the American Indian Movement. But interestingly, after those revelations came out, there were guidelines imposed by the Justice Department itself, the so-called Levi guidelines. Edward Levi was the attorney general under the Ford administration who said you can’t go spying on and infiltrating activist groups in this country unless there’s a predicate of criminal activity. Well, after 9/11, the Bush administration and Ashcroft, his attorney general, completely destroyed the Levi guidelines and let law enforcement do any kind of infiltration they want, without any necessity for any hint of criminal activity on the part of the activists.

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Rothschild, you’ve called for the resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder. Why?

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, for a number of reasons, Amy, first of all, for this scandal about investigating reporters. I think that’s outrageous. We had more than a hundred AP reporters and editors that the Justice Department was gathering information on, and now we have the revelation about the Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was being accused of being a co-conspirator under the Espionage Act of 1917 simply for doing his reporting job. Also, the attorney general has been essentially waging war on whistleblowers under the Espionage Act.

And on top of that, let’s remember, this attorney general, Eric Holder, has been rationalizing the assassination program that the Obama administration has been engaging in, saying that a drone can drop a bomb on a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world, and that U.S. citizen will already have had due process simply because the Obama administration itself or the president or the secretary of defense calls that person a terrorist. Now, that’s not due process, and that’s not what the Justice Department should be doing. Certainly the attorney general, the chief law enforcement officer of this country, should know better than that.

AMY GOODMAN: Matthew Rothschild, isn’t he just carrying out President Obama’s policies?

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, he very well might be, and then we have a more serious problem. We have a serious problem at the very top with a president of the United States, again, like George W. Bush, engaging in illegal activity.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you for being with us. We’re going to do part two of the interview and post it at democracynow.org. Matt Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive magazine, wrote the cover story for the June issue, “Spying on Occupy Activists: How Cops and Homeland Security Help Wall Street.”

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Find this story at 22 May 2013

Bank of America intelligence analyst shared Occupy DC info with police ‘They seemed pretty excited’

Emails released by Washington D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department about the Occupy Our Homes movement reveal frustration from one Bank of America intelligence analyst.

Occupy our Homes, a part of the Occupy movement that began in fall 2011, gained headlines as protesters fought back against home foreclosures across the country. Bank of America Senior U.S. Crime and Intelligence Analyst Amanda Velazquez offered weary commentary in an Occupy email she shared with MPD in September 2012.

“With all the Occupy DC leaders back home, it appears some concrete plans have materialized for the one-year anniversary. Our day for action is Tuesday, 2 October. I think there should be more participation that [sic] the last attempt against us; they seemed pretty excited …”

The anniversary plans included two days of “plays, music, art, political discussions and general assemblies” in Freedom Plaza, according to the email Velazquez forwarded. The occupiers had been forcibly evicted by police in February 2012.

…

The emails were requested as a part of the File for Aaron project.

by Tom Nash on May 1, 2013, 1 p.m.

Find this story at 1 May 2013

© 2013 MuckRock

The U.S. counter terrorism apparatus was used to monitor the Occupy Movement nationwide.

On May 20, 2013, DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy released the results of a year-long investigation: “Dissent or Terror: How the Nation’s Counter Terrorism Apparatus, In Partnership With Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street.” The report, a distillation of thousands of pages of records obtained from counter terrorism/law enforcement agencies, details how state/regional “fusion center” personnel monitored the Occupy Wall Street movement over the course of 2011 and 2012.

The report also examines how fusion centers and other counter terrorism entities that have emerged since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have worked to benefit numerous corporations engaged in public-private intelligence sharing partnerships. While the report examines many instances of fusion center monitoring of Occupy activists nationwide, the bulk of the report details how counter terrorism personnel engaged in the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC, commonly known as the “Arizona fusion center”) monitored and otherwise surveilled citizens active in Occupy Phoenix, and how this surveillance benefited a number of corporations and banks that were subjects of Occupy Phoenix protest activity.

While small glimpses into the governmental monitoring of the Occupy Wall Street movement have emerged in the past, there has not been any reporting — until now — that details the breadth and depth with which the nation’s post-September 11, 2001 counter terrorism apparatus has been applied to politically engaged citizens exercising their Constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights.

REPORT Dissent or Terror: How the Nation’s ‘Counter Terrorism’ Apparatus, in Partnership with Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street

REPORT APPENDIX open records materials cited in report.

PRESS RELEASE “New Report Details How Counter Terrorism Apparatus Was Used to Monitor Occupy Movement Nationwide”(PDF)

SOURCE MATERIALS almost 10,000 pages of open records materials are archived on DBA Press.

PRWATCH ARTICLE “Dissent or Terror: How Arizona’s Counter Terrorism Apparatus, in Partnership with Corporate Interests, Turned on Occupy Phoenix”
Key Findings

Key findings of this report include:
How law enforcement agencies active in the Arizona fusion center dispatched an undercover officer to infiltrate activist groups organizing both protests of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the launch of Occupy Phoenix and how the work of this undercover officer benefited ALEC and the private corporations that were the subjects of these demonstrations.
How fusion centers, funded in large part by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, expended countless hours and tax dollars in the monitoring of Occupy Wall Street and other activist groups.
How the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has financed social media “data mining” programs at local law enforcement agencies engaged in fusion centers.
How counter terrorism government employees applied facial recognition technology, drawing from a state database of driver’s license photos, to photographs found on Facebook in the effort to profile citizens believed to be associated with activist groups.
How corporations have become part of the homeland security “information sharing environment” with law enforcement/intelligence agencies through various public-private intelligence sharing partnerships. The report examines multiple instances in which the counter terrorism/homeland security apparatus was used to gather intelligence relating to activists for the benefit of corporate interests that were the subject of protests.
How private groups and individuals, such as Charles Koch, Chase Koch (Charles’ son and a Koch Industries executive), Koch Industries, and the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council have hired off-duty police officers — sometimes still armed and in police uniforms — to perform the private security functions of keeping undesirables (reporters and activists) at bay.
How counter terrorism personnel monitored the protest activities of citizens opposed to the indefinite detention language contained in National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
How the FBI applied “Operation Tripwire,” an initiative originally intended to apprehend domestic terrorists through the use of private sector informants, in their monitoring of Occupy Wall Street groups. [Note: this issue was reported on exclusively by DBA/CMD in December, 2012.]

Government Surveillance of Occupy Movement
– by Beau Hodai, CMD/DBA

Find this story at 22 May 2013

Dissent or Terror: How the Nation’s ‘Counter Terrorism’ Apparatus, in Partnership with Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street

How America’s National Security Apparatus — in Partnership With Big Corporations — Cracked Down on Dissent A new report is an eye-opening look into how the U.S. counter-terror apparatus was used to track the Occupy movement.

Counter-terror police officers collaborated with corporate entities to combat protests. Undercover police officers monitored and tracked the Occupy movement. A right-wing corporate-backed group hired a police officer to help protect a conference. These are some of the details revealed in a new report published by the Center for Media and Democracy’s Beau Hodai, along with DBA Press. The revelations are based on government documents the group obtained.

The report, titled “Dissent or Terror: How the Nation’s Counter Terrorism Apparatus, In Partnership With Corporate America, Turned on Occupy Wall Street,” is an eye-opening look into how the U.S. counter-terror apparatus was used to track the Occupy movement in 2011 and 2012 and also help protect the business entities targeted by the movement. The report specifically looks at the activities of “fusion centers,” or law enforcement entities created after 9/11 that transform local police forces into counter-terror units in partnership with federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security. The fusion centers devoted a lot of time–to the point of “obsession,” the report notes–to monitoring the Occupy movement, particularly for any “threats” to public safety or health and to whether there were “extremists” involved in the movement.

The documents obtained for the report from government agencies reveal “a grim mosaic of ‘counter-terrorism’ agency operations and attitudes toward activists and other socially/politically-engaged citizens over the course of 2011 and 2012,” writes Hodai. He adds that these heavily-funded agencies indisputably view Occupy activists as “terrorist” threats. Additionally, Hodai writes that “this view of activists, and attendant activist monitoring/suppression, has been carried out on behalf of, and in cooperation with, some of the nation’s largest financial and corporate interests.”

Much of the report hones in on the Occupy Phoenix branch of the movement and Arizona counter-terrorism agents monitoring, tracking and cracking down on the protests.

For instance, when JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was planning on coming to Phoenix in October 2011, a “counter-terrorism” detective employed by the Phoenix Police Department’s Homeland Security Bureau exchanged information on potential protests with a JP Morgan Chase security manager. The detective, Jennifer O’Neill, received information on Dimon’s travel plans, and then shared information about Occupy Phoenix. O’Neill said that she and another officer had tracked the online activities of Occupy protesters to find out if they were planning to protest Dimon. No plans for protest were discovered by O’Neill, who also works with the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center, otherwise known as the Arizona fusion center.

Another similar example of how corporate entities were helped by counter-terrorism units of police forces also occurred in October 2011. Then, businesses–including banks–received alerts authored by the Arizona fusion center about planned protest activities. Similar alerts to banks were given in the run-up to the November 5 day of action labeled “Bank Transfer Day,” which encouraged people to move their money from corporate banks to more local financial institutions. The Federal Bureau of Investigation also engaged in similar activity, according to the report. “The bureau had been in the business of alerting banks (and related entities) tothe planned protest activity of OWS groups as early as August of 2011.”

The extent of law enforcement-corporate cooperation has also been taken a step further by the practice of corporations or right-wing corporate backed groups hiring officers for pay to police protests.

In late November-early December 2011, the largest Occupy Phoenix action took place outside of a conference held by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate-funded group that brings together right-wing lobbyist groups and conservative politicians to push model legislation in state legislatures. The protest was marred by police violence, with officers deploying pepper spray and pepper ball projectiles on activists and arresting 5. While the police portrayed the action as the work of violent anarchists, Hodai writes that this narrative of events had little grounding in reality.

Hodai reveals that the “tactical response unit” of officers working at the action was under the direction of Phoenix Police Department Sgt. Eric Harkins. What makes this noteworthy is that Harkins was “actually off-duty, earning $35 per hour as a private security guard employed by ALEC.” ALEC also “hired 49 active duty and 9 retired PPD officers to act as private security during the conference.” ALEC also employed off-duty police officers from Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department during another ALEC summit in May 2012.

The Center for Media and Democracy report also provides details on how police officers tracked and went undercover to monitor the Occupy movement. The report focuses on an undercover police officer who went by the name of “Saul DeLara,” who presented himself as a homeless Mexican activist. “DeLara” went to Occupy meetings and then reported back on their contents to the police.

The revelations are confirmation that, as the Center for Media and Democracy noted in a press release,”the nation’s post-September 11, 2001 counter terrorism apparatus has been applied to politically engaged citizens exercising their Constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights.”

May 21, 2013
AlterNet / By Alex Kane

Find this story at 21 May 2013