Clova realpolitik

Be careful what you ask for ....

America is all up in arms over the disclosure that that NSA spyed on people in the US following 9/11. First of all, there is a need to protect Americans, and last time I checked the 9/11 thing happened because bad guys were in the US.

UPDATE:
Q&A from the BBC on this topic. This is really threatening to become a storm in a teacup, but one that will seriously affect Bush. Its intersting that the mainstream media are making a bigger deal about this than the blogs. This "eavesdropping" is something the general public assumes happens anyway, and furthermore the congressmen were already briefed on these activities. This eposide is purely political.

Chicago Tribune | Congress seeks answers about spying on citizens

WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress demanded Friday that President Bush and his administration explain his decision to permit the country's most secretive intelligence agency to spy on American citizens in the United States after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks without first obtaining warrants.

Democrats and some Republicans denounced the administration's action, describing it as another example of Bush's use of the threat of terrorism to assume new legal and intelligence powers and limit civil liberties.

Q&A: US domestic spying row
President Bush has revealed he authorised a US intelligence agency to eavesdrop within the United States without court approval. The BBC News website considers some key questions.

What did the president order?

"In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorised the National Security Agency, consistent with US law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations," Mr Bush said on 17 December.

His announcement followed a New York Times report that the president had allowed US intelligence agencies to monitor phone calls and e-mail sent by US citizens without getting permission from the courts.

The paper said the monitoring began in 2002 and has been credited with disrupting some terrorist plots, including a plan to attack British targets.

It quotes unnamed officials with the National Security Agency saying that the NSA conducts warantless surveillance on up to 500 people at any one time in the US.

Mr Bush did not discuss the size of the programme in his address, but said it was regularly reviewed and that Congressional leaders had been briefed on it.

Is this legal?

It is difficult to say.

Civil liberties groups and some senators are concerned about a possible breach of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

This protects the "right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".

Electronic surveillance did not exist in 1789 when this was written, but over the years the limits of the government's powers in relation to new technologies have become more clearly defined.

One key case relevant to the current controversy is the so-called Keith case of 1972, in which the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval for any "domestic security" electronic surveillance.

But legal experts also say there is provision in a 1968 law for federal agents to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance for up to 48 hours before going to court, where there are conspiratorial activities threatening "national security".

Defending the administration, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said only that Mr Bush had "acted lawfully in every step that he has taken".

Why is this such a big issue in the US?

Technological developments have rendered almost every aspect of American lives susceptible to electronic surveillance, yet controls on the use of increasingly sophisticated techniques have not always been effective.

Certain protections were enshrined in law after huge controversy over the "Watch listing" of the 1960s and early 1970s.

Thousands of US citizens and domestic groups, many of whom were active in the anti-Vietnam War and civil rights movements, were placed on "watch lists" by the FBI, CIA, Secret Service and others without judicial warrant.

The latest eavesdropping programme grew out of concerns after the 9/11 attacks that the nation's intelligence agencies were not poised to deal effectively with the threat of al-Qaeda, and were handcuffed by legal restraints more suited to peacetime than war.

The programme - and controversial provisions of the US Patriot Act that expand domestic surveillance - have given rise a new outcry from those who say civil liberties are again being eroded.

What political reaction has there been to the claims?

Senior senators from both main parties are promising investigations of what would appear to be a considerable infringement of the privacy rights of US citizens.

Veteran Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy said: "This is Big Brother run amok."

Another Democrat, Senator Russell Feingold, said "This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American."

Criticism also came from Bush's Republican Party. Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said "there is no doubt that this is inappropriate," and added that he would make oversight hearings by his panel next year "a very, very high priority".

December 17, 2005 at 12:31 PM in Intelligence | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Political reality in Indonesia

Here is a good article on the political issues within Indonesia and why they haven't banned JI, the apparent perpetrators of the 2002, and recent 2005 bombings.

Some may re-consider any vacation plans to a country that thinks this way.

The Counterterrorism Blog: Why Indonesian Authorities Cannot Come Out and Say it Was Jemaah Islamiyah: Pandering to the Islamists

no politician in the world’s largest Muslim community has the political courage to ban an organization that a) simply translates as “Islamic community,” and b) many Muslims does not believe really exists.

October 9, 2005 at 04:27 PM in Intelligence | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

MI5 & GCHQ backs phone-tap evidence in courts

This is a mistake ... telephone evidence in itself isn't going to convict many people so why not rely on other evidence and keep this capability underground.

For example!!

London bombs terror attack The Times and Sunday Times Times Online

Security sources insisted, however, that MI5 had never opposed legislation on intercept material but had merely emphasised that there was a fine balance between the advantages of having such evidence in court and the dis- advantages of revealing its technological capabilities.

September 8, 2005 at 08:24 PM in Intelligence | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

What was known about Atta and when?

With this quote the Americans have themselves in quite a pickle. It appears a secret investgiation by a military intelligence group code named "Able Danger" identified Atta as part of an al Qaeda cell one year prior to 9/11. Again none of this is to say they knew what he was going to do, but the key element is that they decided to not investigate him.

9/11 Commission's Staff Rejected Report on Early Identification of Chief Hijacker - New York Times

But Russell Caso, Mr. Weldon's chief of staff, said that "while the dates may not have meshed" with the commission's information, the central element of the officer's claim was that "Mohammed Atta was identified as being tied to Al Qaeda and a Brooklyn cell more than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, and that should have warranted further investigation by the commission."

Able Danger were analysing travel records seeking patterns which might conclude further investigation was warranted. Using "computer-driven data-mining techniques, sought to call their superiors' attention to Mr. Atta and three other future hijackers in the summer of 2000". This points to the inability of different groups to work together, but on a deeper level, it points to poor investigative processes.

Investigators should always be willing to challenge conventional wisdom, and the mere fact one element (whether Atta was in US prior to 2000) doesn't align isn't enough to brush off other data driven evidence on cell membership.

Mr. Felzenberg said the commission's staff remained convinced that the information provided by the military officer in the July 2004 briefing was inaccurate in a significant way. ....

.... Mr. Felzenberg said staff investigators had become wary of the officer because he argued that Able Danger had identified Mr. Atta, an Egyptian, as having been in the United States in late 1999 or early 2000. The investigators knew this was impossible, Mr. Felzenberg said, since travel records confirmed that he had not entered the United States until June 2000.

"There was no way that Atta could have been in the United States at that time, which is why the staff didn't give this tremendous weight when they were writing the report," Mr. Felzenberg said. "This information was not meshing with the other information that we had."

August 12, 2005 at 01:49 PM in Intelligence, US Politics, al-Qaeda | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Bad idea to publicise how terrorists are traced

While its reassuring to the public to expose their success, it can have unintended consequences, when police elaborate about the methods used to trace these terorists.

Bin Laden was traced in the 90's and again around September 11th using cell records, and subsequently Al Qaeda went underground, resorting to courier. This persists, as reported here recently.

So even these new terror cells in Europe, who are not exactly rocket scientists, don't need any extra help in terms of establishing methods of evading the police.

Intelligence: Suspect 'tracked by phone calls'

Italian investigators say police used cell phone records to track down one of the suspects in the failed suicide bombings in London on 21 July.

Osman Hussain was arrested on Friday in his brother's flat on the outskirts of the Italian capital, Rome.

He was traced using call records from two cell phone numbers, supplied to the Italians by UK police.

Police believe he travelled by train across Europe from London via Paris, Milan and Bologna.

Osman Hussain is wanted in the UK over the attack on Shepherd's Bush underground station.

July 31, 2005 at 08:43 PM in Intelligence | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Guilt by association

This comment from The Times article is indicative of why stronger terrorist laws are required, but further they are indicative of why the policitians must stay out of the detail in how the intelligence services operate. There are ways to deal with these situations, through recruitment into double cross situations, or other methods. The more I watch the American model, followed closely by Tony Blair's practices, where they politicise the intelligence services, the more its clear it handicaps them (the intel services) from protecting us.

London bombs terror attack The Times and Sunday Times Times Online

Pakistani security officials privately told The Times that Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain — all from Leeds — met known al-Qaeda suspects during their trip. They spent most of their time in the company of figures from outlawed militant groups.

Shehzad Tanweer (top) and Mohammad Sidique Khan arriving at Karachi airport in November before travelling around Pakistan (AFP/Getty Images)

July 18, 2005 at 12:44 PM in Intelligence | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home