The key language is in this snippet:
The inspector general concluded that no laws were broken and no evidence exists that the CIA was conducting forbidden domestic spying.
Meaning, the cooperation -- not just between the federal government and the NYPD -- was approved domestic spying.
Translation: Congress was aware of, approved, and was involved with the oversight of the CIA-NYPD cooperation.
A congressional "investigation" would be as effective as. . . well, an "investigation" into FISA violations, prisoner abuses, or rendition.
The real story is that the NYPD, like other domestic law enforcement units, were cooperating with many federal agencies.
It's incorrect to believe that the CIA IG report is definitive. The "other lines" of evidence touch the White House and Congressional Staffers. There is no FOIA provision to mandate a disclosure of a Member of Congressional Committee Staff record. However, there are Congressional Correspondence Logs. . .
What you could do:
1. Staff Counsel Meeting Notes
Review the public records for photos of Congressional Staffers meeting with NYPD personnel after 9-11, to review when Members of Congress should have been aware of the NYPD cooperation with the federal government; and the time when Members of Congress developed an oversight plan to monitor information sharing agreements between local and federal officials and Congressional staffers.
2. Redacted/Non-Listed Federal Agency Abbreviations in NYPD Documents, Congressional Record
Review the Congressional Record for language authorizing the federal government to directly task local law enforcement to provide intelligence information.
3. Legal Justifications for Selective Internment/Surveillance
Discuss whether you believe that the current surveillance programs are "only" limited to Muslims; or whether the federal-local surveillance is much larger. Why weren't American Germans/Italians incarcerated during WWII like the Japanese were; is there a political objective outside genuine intelligence or law enforcement purposes?
4. Local Oversight
Review whether your local government staff and elected officials have the experience, training, education, and support to conduct legal compliance reviews for local law enforcement providing intelligence to the federal government.
Note that some people "assigned" to the CIA were really reporting to the White House. Do you see any similar patterns with the NYPD-CIA domestic surveillance?
Here are some issues you may wish to follow when examining FOIA documents.
A. Congressional Staffer Names
Is there a pattern in which Congressional Staffers reviewed the FISA Immunity Act requests from the telecoms; those staffers involved with the EIT briefings; and those staffers involved with the Congressional oversight of the local-federal law enforcement/intelligence community information sharing?
Check the names within the disclosed databases; and compare the names of the staffers who (a) attended the EIT briefings; (b) were involved with the FISA immunity discussions for the telecoms; and (c) participated in reviews of the rendition programs.
B. NYPD Documents
Do you see anything within the disclosed documents showing a connection between NYPD operations, and authorized disclosures to the national intelligence agencies/communities/contractors?
What dates were the Facebook accounts updated/deleted for Congressional staffers assigned to key oversight committees; and how do these Facebook updates related to times and dates that Congressional staffers interfaced with NYPD personnel or other local law enforcement personnel connected with domestic intelligence gathering?
(1) War Crimes Liability vs. Legislative Immunity
Should Congressional Staffers, legal counsel assigned to the Congressional Committees, or other legislative personnel be subject to FOIA, subpoenas, or compliance with Geneva requirements?
(2) State Level Prosecution of Federally Connected Constitutional Violations
Should a Congressional Staff Committee General Counsel be subject to disbarment proceedings for participating in information transfers between domestic/local law enforcement and the federal government?
(3) Oath of Office for Legislative Counsel
Is there a "knew, or should have known"-standard that applies or should apply to Congressional Staff counsel when they know or should know that domestic intelligence gathering by law enforcement violates the Constitution?
(4) Supremacy of US Constitution, Treaties over Acts of Congress
Can Congress pass a law authorizing local law enforcement to provide intelligence to the federal government, even if the methods used violate the Constitution?
We believe there is evidence linking the White House, Members of Congress, and Congressional Staffers to a broader domestic intelligence gathering operation, not narrowly linked with the CIA, but extending from domestic law enforcement to the Federal Government.
Federal level organizations have been "authorized" by Congress to directly task local law enforcement for intelligence. However, it is unclear whether this tasking narrowly focuses on one ethnic group, or is broadly applied to the US population.
As with the FISA violations, we are not convinced that Members of Congress or their legislative counsel have clean hands: They have a loyalty in protecting contractors and local law enforcement because of their cooperating in providing Members of Congress and personnel in the Executive Branch with support. It remains unclear whether these operations, although "permitted" by Statute, are Constitutional.
The same Congress, Congressional staffers, and legislative counsel which ignored -- and/or helped grant "immunity" for -- FISA-Geneva violations . . .was aware of, and has no plans to do anything about, the possible Constitutional violations connected with local law enforcement and the federal government.
We do not believe that the same Congressional Staffers involved with "EIT oversight," or "telecom immunity discussions," have "independence" to review -- in 2012 -- issues related to the NYPD cooperation with the US federal government or CIA. Rather, it is our contention that the same Congressional staffers well connected with the non-enforcement of FISA and Geneva -- are similarly "situated" to conduct a whitewash "investigation" into the current domestic surveillance programs connected with the NYPD, CIA, and other local and federal level intelligence/law enforcement personnel.
It is our view that because the Congress has designated the continental United States as a potential terrorist operating center -- as confirmed by the DOJ OLC memos recognizing this risk -- that the North American geography is viewed as an active combat zone, subjecting US citizens to surveillance, monitoring, and review that might occur in Afghanistan or Iraq.
We are unclear whether Members of Congress have been adequately briefed on the Geneva implications of failing to ensure that American civilians are adequately protected from outrages by American military combat forces, or those working on behalf of the CIA or other federal-local intelligence activities, especially those conducted on behalf of the Departments of Defense, Justice, or Homeland Security.
We believe American citizens have been subject to outrages, including abuse and improper interrogations and surveillance, subject to the laws of war.
We believe that the federal-local intelligence sharing between local and federal law enforcement and intelligence personnel is far wider than seen through the NYPD-CIA telescope.
It is incorrect to conclude that the CIA IG will have access to White House or Congressional documents needed to conduct a review of non-CIA operations connected with the NYPD or other local law enforcement.
We have no confidence that the Congressional staffers or legal counsel will vigorously review the full scope of information transfers to the federal government or intelligence gathering at the local level; nor make meaningful legal conclusions related to Constitutional violations or needed sanctions on US government personnel or legal counsel found to be complicit with Constitutional violations.
A. State Level Attorney Disciplinary Board, Investigation of Federal Legal Counsel
We believe State-level discussions should occur on what state-level reviews of state-licensed Congressional legal counsel to review, where appropriate, whether Congressional staff counsel have breached State constitutions in knowing, but failing to prevent, unlawful violations of state law when conducting "oversight" of these federal-local law enforcement-intelligence sharing operations.
B. Duty to Defend Constitution Against Domestic Enemies
We believe that were one state refuses to take action against legal counsel subject to that state's attorney disciplinary board, that another state may lawfully take action against contractors, legal counsel, and others who refused to ensure there remains a viable attorney disciplinary system which ensures compliance, defense, and protection the US Constitution, Geneva, and international law.
C. No Statute of Limitations for Alleged Breaches of Geneva
The alleged breaches of the US Constitution by local law enforcement, and the associated cooperation by US government and Congressional staff counsel should be viewed through the larger lens of "alleged breaches of Geneva and the laws of war" and other outrages committed by the US government, its intelligence personnel, and others supporting combat operations -- against American civilians
D. Oversight of Prosecutors
Where appropriate, state-level investigations should start against local and federal prosecutors who have used information unlawfully collected in breach of FISA; or for using evidence which was gathered using methods which breach the US Constitution.
E. Qualified Legislative Immunity for Congressional Staff Counsel
State prosecutors and other local investigators should review whether there exists evidence to strip Congressional Staff counsel of legislative immunity when their alleged conduct, misconduct, malfeasance, or nonfeasance extends to breaching, facilitating, or failing to enforce international law, FISA, Geneva, or other Constitutional requirements under the Supreme Law.
One way to shut down an investigation into FISA-Geneva violations is to grant immunity to the telecoms. With immunity, the telecoms may not cooperate with state level investigations into local law enforcement cooperation with the federal government or Congressional Staffers re Geneva, FISA, or Constitutional violations during domestic surveillance operations against American citizens.