With all the attention that has been paid to King George's edict approving high-tech spying on his subjects, the question of the uses to which information gathered has been put has been relatively neglected. Today's
Washington Post offers a peek into the intelligence world, giving us part of the answer to this question. Courtesy of Walter Pincus, we find that everything old is new again.
(Hat tip to philipmerrill for bringing this article to our attention.)
Information captured by the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping on communications between the United States and overseas has been passed on to other government agencies, which cross-check the information with tips and information collected in other databases, current and former administration officials said.
Follow below the fold for more.
The NSA has turned such information over to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and to other government entities, said three current and former senior administration officials, although it could not be determined which agencies received what types of information. Information from intercepts -- which typically includes records of telephone or e-mail communications -- would be made available by request to agencies that are allowed to have it, including the FBI, DIA, CIA and Department of Homeland Security, one former official said.
This pattern of use indicates a systematic program of sharing information with other government agencies, as one would expect in the post-9/11 world. Trouble is, if the NSA program is illegal it taints any legal prosecution that follows. Pincus cites evidence that the Defense Department used this information inside the US for its Talon program, among other things.
At least one of those organizations, the DIA, has used NSA information as the basis for carrying out surveillance of people in the country suspected of posing a threat, according to two sources....DIA personnel stationed inside the United States conduct[ed] physical surveillance of people or vehicles identified as a result of NSA intercepts, said two sources familiar with the operations, although the DIA said it does not conduct such activities.
Pincus also refers to Northcom, the Pentagon command set up by Bush to help protect the homeland. He mentions that the NSA intercept data was included in Northcom's data mining activities to intercept "terrorist" groups, such as Quakers.
The historical context is set by comparing today's activities to those in the Vietnam war.
Today's controversy over the domestic NSA intercepts echoes events of more than three decades ago. Beginning in the late 1960s, the NSA was asked initially by the Johnson White House and later by the Army, the Secret Service, and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to intercept messages to or from the United States. Members of Congress were not informed of the program....The initial purpose was to "help determine the existence of foreign influence" on "civil disturbances occurring throughout the nation," threats to the president and other issues.
While Johnson's administration claimed the program was legal, Congress disagreed. The program was a prime reason for the Church Committee hearings in the mid 1970's, which led to passage of the FISA law.
Allen [Johnson's NSA director], in comments similar to recent Bush administration statements, said collecting communications involving American citizens was approved legally, by two attorneys general....As the Church hearings later showed, the Army expanded the NSA collection and had units around the country gather names and license plates of those attending antiwar rallies and demonstrations. In response, Congress in 1978 passed the Foreign Intelligence Security Act, which limited NSA interception of calls from overseas to U.S. citizens or those involving American citizens traveling abroad.
We can conclude from this important article in the Jekyll-and-Hyde WaPo that today's NSA program is apparently a high-tech version of the 1960-70's domestic surveillance program which led directly to the FISA law. Given that legislative history, it is difficult to imagine a legal argument that the FISA law does not apply in the current instance.