TOPICS
TOPICS
Stronger oversight of intelligence hubs encouraged
Legislation to ensure that the Homeland Security Department continues funding personnel serving in state-run intelligence "fusion centers" around the country has critics of the facilities arguing for greater congressional oversight.
The bill was introduced in May by Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee ranking member Dave Reichert, R-Wash., after hearing news that a center in his state was in danger of losing funding.
His legislation clarifies mandates of a sweeping law enacted last year to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to make certain grants can be used to keep and hire intelligence analysts for the centers.
Intelligence Subcommittee Chairwoman Jane Harman, D-Calif., brought the bill to the floor under suspension of the rules on Tuesday on Reichert's behalf. Consideration of the measure was delayed until later this week, though.
"Fusion centers have had to cease operations because of unnecessary restrictions on funding," Rep. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., said, noting that state and local agents are critical links in sharing intelligence.
On a Tuesday teleconference, officials from the American Civil Liberties Union argued that fusion centers are part of "an incipient de facto domestic intelligence system."
The ACLU released an update to a 2007 report that details recent spying on Maryland peace activists; a surveillance scandal at a California military base, and other incidents. Those cases illustrate what the ACLU views as a dangerous "mission creep" of the fusion centers, ACLU's Caroline Fredrickson said. "We cannot afford to be in the dark," she said, calling on Congress to "do its job" and investigate.
Frederickson said the centers differ in significant ways and there is no single model or standards by which their data gathering and sharing activities are governed. Lawmakers must have a discussion about guidelines and the private sector's role in the information swapping, she said.
"In a multiagency environment when it's unclear which agencies' rules apply, very quickly, no rules apply," added ACLU policy counsel Mike German.
Although Harman chaired a hearing on fusion centers in March, which heard from the Homeland Security Department's intelligence, civil liberties and privacy officers, German argued that members are only hearing from the centers' proponents.
"Nobody's telling the other side of the story," he said. Congressional efforts to date "seem to be providing them with resources to continue developing rather than to see if what they're doing is appropriate," German added.
House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said he was troubled to hear that "ordinary innocent Americans are being spied on for simply exercising their rights. ... The Constitution cannot be ignored under the guise of promoting national security."
COMMENTS
- Another “almost” diary moment. I “almost” agree with Skeeter; BUT… for entirely different reasons. With the implementation of the new FISA [Act], the net casting techniques of electronic surveillance must be vetted by personnel at the local level. With lessened federal assistance in other areas, local authorities will be understandably hesitant to take money from lean coffers to support any federal initiatives. Additionally, even if the local authorities were to glean some small benefit from this federal endeavor, the net info intake will flow from local to the federal with returns made only on a “need to know” basis; continuing the tradition of local authorities looking at “Big Brother” with a jaundiced view. Thus, the infusion of funds for intelligence gathering must make the overall burden as light as feasible. In government-speak: if this macro info net dredging effort is to succeed, the grain must be separated from the chaff and that can only be accomplished at the micro level with cooperation from and minimal cost to the local yokels; thus the funds/resources will have to come from “on high”. Perhaps the last vestige of our privacy and rights will be decided on the calculators of the bean counters and in the animosity between those who must deal with our humanity on a daily basis and those who think they see the “real”, big picture. If you think the TSP board is righteous, sanctimonious, even insidious; trust me here, “Big Brother” is getting closer to reality every day. Try taking another peak at “Nineteen Eighty-Four” by George Orwell; the resemblances are becoming remarkable. And if you’ve never read it, you will be amazed how this 1949 novel could be so close to reality today. Tip off Posted August 4, 2008 7:56 AM
- There is too much money being wasted on grants for HS, anytime a locality needs funds at a minimum they need to come up with half of the budget Dan ketter Posted July 31, 2008 12:32 PM
- The only reason that the Republican Congressman cares about this program and is demanding more funding are because the jobs are in his State. If the job losses were in Idaho, would he care? Well, the Congressman from Idaho is not saying they need to keep the jobs in Washington State, so here we go again wasting taxpayer dollars for earmarked programs in individual States. This earmarking and partisanship are major problems that impact our taxdollars. No wonder the American public has a 14% approval rating of Congress. This bill needs shelved. Marcus Posted July 31, 2008 7:57 AM
